The Briefing Room

General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: happyg on April 10, 2014, 10:52:04 pm

Title: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 10, 2014, 10:52:04 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tfOVg5R4ngA

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Atomic Cow on April 10, 2014, 10:54:38 pm
They're going to give Obama the excuse he's been looking for to declare martial law.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 10, 2014, 11:16:39 pm
They're going to give Obama the excuse he's been looking for to declare martial law.

No sadly there are far too many that support the government's position "it's theirs to do what they want".   Protect the turtles, the lizards, the freakin snail darter...to hell with we the people.

 
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: sinkspur on April 10, 2014, 11:21:58 pm
They're going to give Obama the excuse he's been looking for to declare martial law.

Oh for God's sake!!!

Most ranchers who graze their cattle on federal land pay fees for the privilege of doing so.  Bundy wants to graze his cattle for free.

Instead of trying to work this out, he'd rather provoke a confrontation.  He's going to lose all his cattle and have to pay the fees anyway.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 10, 2014, 11:32:05 pm
Oh for God's sake!!!

Most ranchers who graze their cattle on federal land pay fees for the privilege of doing so.  Bundy wants to graze his cattle for free.

Instead of trying to work this out, he'd rather provoke a confrontation.  He's going to lose all his cattle and have to pay the fees anyway.

The Western War: Last Remaining Rancher Vs The Federal Gov’t - See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/the-western-war-last-remaining-rancher-vs-the-federal-govt/#sthash.Df5DoOwN.HRt1CfO3.dpuf

Cliven Bundy is a 60-some-odd year-old rancher, the last remaining rancher in a southern Nevada county battling the Bureau of Land Management over his grazing rights. They’ve sent snipers, hundreds of heavily-armed agents, helicopters, and have closed roads and set up a heavily-mocked “First Amendment area.” They’ve taken 300 of his 900 head of cattle and reportedly killed a number of them. BLM claimed that it was to protect a desert tortoise that they are killing anyway. He told me in an interview today that he’s “paid for and inherited these rights” and explained that since the BLM’s recent arrival in the late 90s, they’ve tried to revoke a deal he and his family have had with the state of Nevada. You can listen to the full interview below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOh6tetosiY&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 10, 2014, 11:33:12 pm
Bundy was there long before the damn turtles. The Feds stole the land, and he's fighting back. Good for him.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 10, 2014, 11:43:33 pm
They’ve taken 300 of his 900 head of cattle and reportedly killed a number of them.

Seems they have a habit of this, last time it was the children.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: mountaineer on April 10, 2014, 11:56:10 pm
Why not just fine him if he's violating a law? Why kill the cattle? Why turn this into another Waco?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Chieftain on April 10, 2014, 11:59:18 pm
Why not just fine him if he's violating a law? Why kill the cattle? Why turn this into another Waco?

And that's what they are risking here.  No telling how heavily armed BLM is, or how heavy their reinforcements would be if called upon.  Look at the proliferation of SWAT teams in local Sheriff's offices across the Country, and imagine what "the Feds" have access too.  For starters, most Sheriffs can't call in helicopter gunships.....

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 11, 2014, 12:38:10 am
From this article:
Quote
The Bundy Ranch has been in the family for 120 years..  Back in 1993, the government regulators placed a number of new restrictions on where the ranchers could graze their cattle to protect a turtle..  According to Cliven Bundy the change violated a number of laws and contractual agreements.  Bundy lost in court but is refusing to give up the family ranch. It looks like he has the support of his neighbors

http://grumpyelder.com/2014/04/nevada-obamas-epa-thugs-attack-citizens-with-dogs-and-tasers/ (http://grumpyelder.com/2014/04/nevada-obamas-epa-thugs-attack-citizens-with-dogs-and-tasers/)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 11, 2014, 12:41:39 am
Also from a post on FB:
Quote
Here is the story of Cliven Bundy, the rancher in Nevada that the Federal Government is trying to take his land. There is more that they are doing to this man and the people who are standing with him. Our Government is out of Control.
 Mr. Bundy’s daughter Shiree Bundy Cox in a letter explains the feud from the family’s perspective:“I have had people ask me to explain my dad’s stance on this BLM fight. Here it is in as simple of terms as I can explain it. There is so much to it, but here it s in a nut shell. My great grandpa bought the rights to the Bunkerville allotment back in 1887 around there. Then he sold them to my grandpa who then turned them over to my dad in 1972. These men bought and paid for their rights to the range and also built waters, fences and roads to assure the survival of their cattle, all with their own money, not with tax dollars. The rights to the land use are called preemptive rights. Some where down the line, to keep the cows from over grazing, came the Bureau of Land Management. They were supposed to assist the ranchers in the management of their ranges while the ranchers paid a yearly allotment which was to be use to pay the BLM wages and to help with repairs and improvements of the ranches. My dad did pay his grazing fees for years to the BLM until they were no longer using his fees to help him and to improve. Instead they began using these monies against the ranchers. They bought all the rest of the ranchers in the area out with they’re own grazing fees. When they offered to buy my dad out for a penance he said no thanks and then fired them because they weren’t doing their job. He quit paying the BLM and tried giving his grazing fees to the county, which they turned down. So my dad just went on running his ranch and making his own improvements with his own equipment and his own money, not taxes. In essence the BLM was managing my dad out of business. Well when buying him out didn’t work, they used the endangered species card. You’ve already heard about the desert tortoise. Well that didn’t work either, so then began the threats and the court orders, which my dad has proven to be unlawful for all these years. Now they’re desperate. It’s come down to buying the brand inspector off and threatening the County Sheriff. Everything their doing at this point is illegal and totally against the Constitution of the United States of America. Then there’s the issue of the cattle that are at this moment being stolen. See even if dad hasn’t paid them, those cattle belong to him, regardless of where they are they are my father’s property. His herd has been part of that range for over a hundred years, long before the BLM even existed. Now the Feds think they can just come in and remove them and sell them without a legal brand inspection or without my dad’s signature on it. They think they can take them over two borders, which is illegal, ask any trucker. Then they plan to take them to the Richfield Auction and sell them. All this with our tax money. They have paid off the contract cowboys and the auction owner as well as the Nevada brand inspector with our tax dollars. See how slick they are? Well, this is it in a nut shell.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 11, 2014, 12:53:42 am
OUTRAGEOUS: Ranch Protesters Tasered By Federal Agents


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA&feature=player_embedded

Article at link: http://patdollard.com/2014/04/outrageous-ranch-protesters-tasered-by-federal-agents/ (http://patdollard.com/2014/04/outrageous-ranch-protesters-tasered-by-federal-agents/)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 11, 2014, 01:13:34 am
OUTRAGEOUS: Ranch Protesters Tasered By Federal Agents


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhJ6H9vlEDA&feature=player_embedded

Article at link: http://patdollard.com/2014/04/outrageous-ranch-protesters-tasered-by-federal-agents/ (http://patdollard.com/2014/04/outrageous-ranch-protesters-tasered-by-federal-agents/)

Look at 1:24 into the video.  The cop knees the dog toward a girl. 

Our country is gone.

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 11, 2014, 01:20:37 am
Look at 1:24 into the video.  The cop knees the dog toward a girl. 

Our country is gone.

Thanks! I didn't catch that. I noticed the other girl came up and gave him a round of hell, and told him to get that dog out of there.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: EC on April 11, 2014, 04:34:52 pm
We are not going to agree about this!  :laugh:

To give a perspective - no one here owns land. Almost no one, at least, there are a few families that have grants from the Crown. The family moves or dies out, so does the grant. Yet I am entitled, as a land "owner", to enjoy my property from 3 meters down to 50 meters up. I may also use the common land for grazing sheep, walking or just messing around, with no fee or penalty to be paid. That is part of my title and may not be removed without a specific act of Parliament.

It could be argued that Federal lands are the equivalent of common lands. Owned and to be freely available to all.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 11, 2014, 05:10:14 pm
I'm afraid that she has misstated the facts.  Her great grandfather did nothing more than rent the land

That's what they told the Indians too.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 11, 2014, 05:14:18 pm
I'm afraid that she has misstated the facts.  Her great grandfather did nothing more than rent the land for the purpose of grazing cattle.  The "preemptive rights" she refers to seem to be the grazing preference given to people who already hold grazing permits which entitles them to special consideration over applicants for grazing permits who haven't acquired a preference.  As I read it, this sounds basically like a right of first refusal that prevents someone from leasing grazing rights out from underneath the person currently using them.

Those grazing permits were transferred down, ultimately to her father.  In 1993 the grazing rights were up for renewal.  For whatever reason he chose not to renew or to continue paying rent for the land he was using.

In other words, stripped of the terms of art used for agricultural grazing issues, his grandfather rented the land solely for the purpose of grazing cattle and the lease for that land was eventually transferred to him, Cliven Bundy.  In other words, his grandfather's original lease was assigned to him, something that happens all the time with regular commercial leases.  In 1993 he broke the terms of the lease when he stopped paying the rent, which is what the grazing fees are.  Ever since then, for the last twenty years, he's been trespassing on that property in violation of the owner's rights.

The mere fact that his grandfather paid money to lease the grazing rights doesn't make the land his just as my paying rent doesn't make me owner of the house I'm renting.  That he and his family invested money in building fences and such doesn't change things at all.  When a renter builds stuff on the land he's renting, that stuff becomes the property of the landowner; it definitely doesn't make the renter the owner of the land.

I'm sorry but Mr. Bundy is a scofflaw of the first order and is no better than an illegal alien who initially entered legally on a temporary visa and then stayed here after the visa expired.
People lease land to drill for oil, gas, produce coal and minerals. People lease land to erect commercial and residential buildings (usally very long term).

And in this case the rancher essentially leases grazing right from the fedgov for the land where he runs his herds.

He never did own the land, notwithstanding the longevity of his usage.

Many will feel it is heavyhanded for the fedgov to be able to unilaterally insert new conditions into said leasing/fee contract. But behind that is likely legislation, by duly elected representatives of "we the people."

If you as citizen/voter prefer the rancher to have status above the tortoises, you need to convince your fellow voters.

His failure to pay his fees, places him in a weaker position. He has lost continuously in courts.

Like the outcome or not, this is the rule of law in action. We haven't had new offshore drilling in California for decades. I don't like the result, but I have not forced an armed confrontation with government authorities to make the point.

Militia coming to Nevada with arms puts the political right in a weak position, but most of those types are just itching for a chance to show off their bravado, a few in person, and more from the safety of their keyboards.

And the case supporting this rancher is weak at best.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: ABX on April 11, 2014, 05:27:31 pm
One of the big confusions here is the claim and misuse of term 'rent'. These old grazing grants are not renting in the general sense. These were contracts with the rancher and State which basically gave the rancher 'use ownership' while the State owns the land. A lot of times, in order to make it the same as ownership, the rights were contracted for 999 years.  Tens if not hundreds of millions of acres around this country are held by ranchers this way, it is one of the foundations of the large ranching system.

When the contracts were handed from the State to the Federal Government, one of the caviats were that these existing contracts would be honored.

This is the crux of the issue, the BLM has come in and claimed right to both land ownership and breaking the contract on usage ownership.

Here is the scary part. Millions of these acres were legally used by ranch owners to sell usage rights to developers and in some areas, subdivisions have grown up on this land. If this trend continues, there will be nothing stopping the BLM from coming in and taking property from millions of homeowners around the country.

I wouldn't be surprised if you dig into the deed history of many people on this site, you'll find that your homes fall under this. Your land and home are simply transfers of usage rights, not true landowner rights.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: DCPatriot on April 11, 2014, 05:34:38 pm
One of the big confusions here is the claim and misuse of term 'rent'. These old grazing grants are not renting in the general sense. These were contracts with the rancher and State which basically gave the rancher 'use ownership' while the State owns the land. A lot of times, in order to make it the same as ownership, the rights were contracted for 999 years.  Tens if not hundreds of millions of acres around this country are held by ranchers this way, it is one of the foundations of the large ranching system.

When the contracts were handed from the State to the Federal Government, one of the caviats were that these existing contracts would be honored.

This is the crux of the issue, the BLM has come in and claimed right to both land ownership and breaking the contract on usage ownership.

Here is the scary part. Millions of these acres were legally used by ranch owners to sell usage rights to developers and in some areas, subdivisions have grown up on this land. If this trend continues, there will be nothing stopping the BLM from coming in and taking property from millions of homeowners around the country.

I wouldn't be surprised if you dig into the deed history of many people on this site, you'll find that your homes fall under this. Your land and home are simply transfers of usage rights, not true landowner rights.

This is all about revenge toward the White Man. 

I was thinking title insurance would protect the homeowner, but only financially...should the highest Court agree with the government.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: ABX on April 11, 2014, 05:39:52 pm
This is all about revenge toward the White Man. 

I was thinking title insurance would protect the homeowner, but only financially...should the highest Court agree with the government.

The funny part is millions of these acres are use-owned by Hispanic ranchers in the Southwest through grants given by the Spanish when they ruled the area. They still have 800+ years to go on their land use contracts.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: ABX on April 11, 2014, 05:45:42 pm
An interesting question as to whether that title would survive the change in sovereign.  It is possible that it did.

I need to refresh my memory but I recall there was a case in the late 1800s where this exact issue came up.  The US had said they would honor these grants at one point as part of encouraging loyalty.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: DCPatriot on April 11, 2014, 05:47:56 pm
An interesting question as to whether that title would survive the change in sovereign.  It is possible that it did.


LOL!   You wake up one day and your home is in "Mexico". 

And of course, you're there with no papers.....oh-oh!     
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 11, 2014, 05:49:18 pm
One of the big confusions here is the claim and misuse of term 'rent'. These old grazing grants are not renting in the general sense. These were contracts with the rancher and State which basically gave the rancher 'use ownership' while the State owns the land. A lot of times, in order to make it the same as ownership, the rights were contracted for 999 years.  Tens if not hundreds of millions of acres around this country are held by ranchers this way, it is one of the foundations of the large ranching system.

When the contracts were handed from the State to the Federal Government, one of the caviats were that these existing contracts would be honored.

This is the crux of the issue, the BLM has come in and claimed right to both land ownership and breaking the contract on usage ownership.

Here is the scary part. Millions of these acres were legally used by ranch owners to sell usage rights to developers and in some areas, subdivisions have grown up on this land. If this trend continues, there will be nothing stopping the BLM from coming in and taking property from millions of homeowners around the country.

I wouldn't be surprised if you dig into the deed history of many people on this site, you'll find that your homes fall under this. Your land and home are simply transfers of usage rights, not true landowner rights.
If traced back, my deed leads to Spanish land grants. The "crown" deeded the land to selected rich educated people, to further the colonization process. Like it or not, that is how it worked and works.

It wasn't a "lease for years" or other variant. It allowed the fee simple deedholder to further transfer ownership the property.

Bundy has never produced any deed showing him as a fee simple landowner. He has been a holder of rights, like a lease.  When he quit paying his fees, he weakens any claims to the land whatsoever. He has lost in court every time.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: ABX on April 11, 2014, 05:50:50 pm
Found it.. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ending the war with Mexico guaranteed honoring those land grants and contracts. The "An Act to Ascertain and Settle Private Land Claims in the State of California" was passed by Congress in 1851 and if title was presented, it would be honored (it was controversial because if they didn't have a written title or grant, they lost the land). This is specifically California but extended to much of the Southwest.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: ABX on April 11, 2014, 05:55:24 pm
If traced back, my deed leads to Spanish land grants. The "crown" deeded the land to selected rich educated people, to further the colonization process. Like it or not, that is how it worked and works.

It wasn't a "lease for years" or other variant. It allowed the fee simple deedholder to further transfer ownership the property.

Bundy has never produced any deed showing him as a fee simple landowner. He has been a holder of rights, like a lease.  When he quit paying his fees, he weakens any claims to the land whatsoever. He has lost in court every time.

The 'fees' were not part of the original contract nor were they legally taxes passed by Congress. They were just claimed by the BLM under the guise of seizing property.

It would be very much like if your home falls under land under the aforementioned California ranchos (yes, different State but same principle) as much of LA, San Diego, and other areas do. The feds decide they want your land so they decide as technical land deed owners to start assessing you a fee to use your home so high, there is no way you can comply, so they then come in and take your home.

Many people think they own their land, but they don't, they only own the rights to use the land.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: ABX on April 11, 2014, 06:03:28 pm
This is interesting. A while back LA Times exposed Harry Reid's connection to solar firms and massive donations to him. It is a former Reid staffer who now runs BLM. Guess what, this land is wanted by these solar firms for a new solar project (we know how these companies work with DC, a lot of $$ involved and political kickbacks).

http://www.futurnamics.com/reid_bundyranch.php

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 11, 2014, 07:09:09 pm
This is interesting. A while back LA Times exposed Harry Reid's connection to solar firms and massive donations to him. It is a former Reid staffer who now runs BLM. Guess what, this land is wanted by these solar firms for a new solar project (we know how these companies work with DC, a lot of $$ involved and political kickbacks).

http://www.futurnamics.com/reid_bundyranch.php

Right! Rap sent me this on FB: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/04/09/the-federal-government-moved-some-cows-and-nevadas-governor-isnt-happy-about-it/#comments (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2014/04/09/the-federal-government-moved-some-cows-and-nevadas-governor-isnt-happy-about-it/#comments)
125 Comments
Discussion Policy

BumperPressdotcom

2:52 PM EDT

Don't believe for a minute the FEDS are representing the rights of the public. It's desert land suitable only for cattle grazing, which is what the Bundy family has been doing there for over 100 years. The cattle and the land are suited for each other. It's a symbiotic relationship. The desert tortoise is not being threatened by the cattle grazing but by the BLM who are euthanizing them by the thousands. His great grandfather bought the rights to graze his cattle on the land long before the BLM came in. The BLM ruthlessly destroyed a way of life for all the other cattle ranchers who grazed their cattle on that land. They have all since been driven out through intimidation, except for Cliven Bundy. The FEDS want the grazing land for the minerals and oil fracking deposits, not for saving the tortoises, who were doing fine for the past 100 years, until the BLM stepped in. It's nothing but a corporate takeover of public land. The current head of the BLM is Neil Kornze, a former land policy adviser to "Dirty" Harry Reid, who stands to make millions from the land deals. Cliven Bundy is an honest man and a real American who is being trampled upon by big government. It's all about ruthless tyranny usurping his constitutional rights now, and yours later.

Chocoholic Leprechaun

2:26 PM EDT
- Bundy is the last of 53 ranchers who grazed herds on this land. The rest have been driven off - and out of business.
- 20 years ago BLM "reclassified" the land Bundy's family has used for over a hundred years.
- Claims of protecting the desert tortoise are bogus because the BLM has started killing them in large numbers due to "lack of funding" to carefor them.
- BLM's replacement excuse is to make it a "conservation area", but conservation of this type of land does not preclude grazing.In fact, buffalo and bison roamed here.
- The BLM is destroying wells the ranchers built and maintained on the land (the "land restoration" they're doing).
- Cattle are being rounded up, at least in part, by helicopters and some cattle are dying due to running in the desert heat.
- In its wisdom, the BLM chose calving season for its raid. Calves are dying from being separated from their mothers.
- From Day 1 the BLM showed up with hundreds, including snipers stationed around the area, and Blackwater type mercenaries.
- Nevada state police on the scene have been turning their backs on the BLM because they don't approve of the tactics.
- County Sheriff Gillespie has refused to act to stop the BLM, although it is within his authority to turn back the feds when they act against thepublic safety of citizens.
- BLM is making millions on similar cleared lands in northern Nevada, auctioning mineral and gas rights onceranchers are cleared.
George74

12:48 PM EDT

If they had a case all the BLM had to do was attach the rancher's bank account so much a month. No need to spend three million dollars(!) rounding up his cattle, no need to run pregnant cattle to death with helicopters, no need to assault citizens by shooting them with tazers or pulling weapons on them, no need to block roads. This is about getting the cattle off the land so it can be used for fracking or some other use. I smell Sen Reid and his son in the background

More at link
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 11, 2014, 07:28:56 pm
The funny part is millions of these acres are use-owned by Hispanic ranchers in the Southwest through grants given by the Spanish when they ruled the area. They still have 800+ years to go on their land use contracts.

One of the areas of federal control in Texas is "Padre Island" now a national seashore.  It is named after the original owner, a Spanish priest.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 11, 2014, 07:36:57 pm
BLM sells 29 oil, gas leases in northeast Nevada


RENO, Nev. (AP) — Buyers snapped up 29 federal land leases totaling more than 56 square miles in a northeastern Nevada area.
 
This could become the state's first oil shale fracking site.
 
U.S. Bureau of Land Management geologist Lorenzo Trimble tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal the Elko County oil and gas leases sold Tuesday for $1.27 million to six different companies.

The auction took place in Reno. The leases are near where Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. wants to drill for oil and natural gas on 40,000 acres of public and private land near the town of Wells.

The Review-Journal reports the project would be the first in Nevada to use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract oil and gas from shale deposits.

The BLM is conducting an environmental review of Noble's proposal.
http://m.shalereporter.com/industry/article_0de547ba-8ca4-11e2-ab4e-0019bb30f31a.html#user-comment-area (http://m.shalereporter.com/industry/article_0de547ba-8ca4-11e2-ab4e-0019bb30f31a.html#user-comment-area)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 11, 2014, 07:47:34 pm
One of the areas of federal control in Texas is "Padre Island" now a national seashore.  It is named after the original owner, a Spanish priest.
Maybe lawyer Mark Levin can explain the legal issues. Or lawyer Hugh Hewitt.

Terms and conditions for contracts CAN be unilaterally changed, and the other party can either negotiate, accept and honor the terms, or the deal is finished.

He's a squatter, now.

Maybe the entire family could have found other lands, to graze their herds. His herds are not large in number, and suitable or better lands are probably available in nearby Nevada, Utah and Arizona.

That would be hard exacting work. And of course he'd have to pay.

I believe at the end of this, thoughtful conservatives will see the rule of law aspects.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 11, 2014, 07:51:18 pm
Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch

BLM attempted cover-up of Sen. Reid/Chinese gov’t takeover of ranch for solar farm

Kit Daniels
 Infowars.com
 April 11, 2014

The Bureau of Land Management, whose Director was Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) former senior adviser, has purged documents from its web site stating that the agency wants Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy’s cattle off of the land his family has worked for over 140 years in order to make way for solar panel power stations.



Deleted from BLM.gov but reposted for posterity by the Free Republic, the BLM document entitled “Cattle Trespass Impacts” directly states that Bundy’s cattle “impacts” solar development, more specifically the construction of “utility-scale solar power generation facilities” on “public lands.”

“Non-Governmental Organizations have expressed concern that the regional mitigation strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone utilizes Gold Butte as the location for offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development, and that those restoration activities are not durable with the presence of trespass cattle,” the document states.

Another BLM report entitled Regional Mitigation Strategy for the Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone (BLM Technical Note 444) reveals that Bundy’s land in question is within the “Dry Lake Solar Energy Zone and surrounding area” which is part of a broad U.S. Department of Energy program for “Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States” on land “managed” by BLM.

“In 2012, the BLM and the U.S. Department of Energy published the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States,” the report reads. “The Final Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement assessed the impact of utility-scale solar energy development on public lands in the six southwestern states of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah.”

“The Approved Resource Management Plan Amendments/Record of Decision (ROD) for Solar Energy Development in Six Southwestern States implemented a comprehensive solar energy program for public lands in those states and incorporated land use allocations and programmatic and SEZ-specific design features into land use plans in the six-state study area.”

In 2012, the New American reported that Harry Reid’s son, Rory Reid, was the chief representative for a Chinese energy firm planning to build a $5-billion solar plant on public land in Laughlin, Nevada.

And journalist Marcus Stern with Reuters also reported that Sen. Reid was heavily involved in the deal as well.

“[Reid] and his oldest son, Rory, are both involved in an effort by a Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and panel manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert,” he wrote. “Reid has been one of the project’s most prominent advocates, helping recruit the company during a 2011 trip to China and applying his political muscle on behalf of the project in Nevada.”

“His son, a lawyer with a prominent Las Vegas firm that is representing ENN, helped it locate a 9,000-acre (3,600-hectare) desert site that it is buying well below appraised value from Clark County, where Rory Reid formerly chaired the county commission.”

Although these reports are in plain view, the mainstream media has so far ignored this link.

The BLM’s official reason for encircling the Bundy family with sniper teams and helicopters was to protect the endangered desert tortoise, which the agency has previously been killing in mass due to “budget constraints.”

“A tortoise isn’t the reason why BLM is harassing a 67 year-old rancher; they want his land,” journalist Oceander Loesch wrote. “The tortoise wasn’t of concern when [U.S. Senator] Harry Reid worked with BLM to literally change the boundaries of the tortoise’s habitat to accommodate the development of his top donor, Harvey Whittemore.”

“Reid is accused of using the new BLM chief as a puppet to control Nevada land (already over 84% of which is owned by the federal government) and pay back special interests,” she added. “BLM has proven that they’ve a situational concern for the desert tortoise as they’ve had no problem waiving their rules concerning wind or solar power development. Clearly these developments have vastly affected a tortoise habitat more than a century-old, quasi-homesteading grazing area.”

“If only Clive Bundy were a big Reid donor.”

Update: The Drudge Report, the #1 news aggregate site in the world, has now picked up this story. Unfortunately for the BLM, the documents they wanted to delete are now exposed for the world to see.


This article was posted: Friday, April 11, 2014 at 2:24 pm

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/ (http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 11, 2014, 07:53:51 pm
BLM sells 29 oil, gas leases in northeast Nevada


RENO, Nev. (AP) — Buyers snapped up 29 federal land leases totaling more than 56 square miles in a northeastern Nevada area.
 
This could become the state's first oil shale fracking site.
 
Clue: Northeastern Nevada is a long, long way from Bundy's grazing location.

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 11, 2014, 07:58:33 pm
BLM sells 29 oil, gas leases in northeast Nevada


RENO, Nev. (AP) — Buyers snapped up 29 federal land leases totaling more than 56 square miles in a northeastern Nevada area.
 
This could become the state's first oil shale fracking site.
 
U.S. Bureau of Land Management geologist Lorenzo Trimble tells the Las Vegas Review-Journal the Elko County oil and gas leases sold Tuesday for $1.27 million to six different companies.

The auction took place in Reno. The leases are near where Houston-based Noble Energy Inc. wants to drill for oil and natural gas on 40,000 acres of public and private land near the town of Wells.

The Review-Journal reports the project would be the first in Nevada to use hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to extract oil and gas from shale deposits.

The BLM is conducting an environmental review of Noble's proposal.
http://m.shalereporter.com/industry/article_0de547ba-8ca4-11e2-ab4e-0019bb30f31a.html#user-comment-area (http://m.shalereporter.com/industry/article_0de547ba-8ca4-11e2-ab4e-0019bb30f31a.html#user-comment-area)

Want to know the absurdity of this BS?  Cows and drilling rigs have gotten along just fine in Texas for the past 60-70 years. 
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 11, 2014, 07:59:26 pm
Pointing a scatter gun into the air, and blasting away.....Harry Reid, fracking, solar, doesn't make a stronger case.

It is downright irresponsible urging a pickup full of armed militia yokels to go get shot at, for such a weak legal case.

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 11, 2014, 08:03:38 pm

Terms and conditions for contracts CAN be unilaterally changed, and the other party can either negotiate, accept and honor the terms, or the deal is finished.

Especially when one side disregards the rule of law.  General Motors ring any bells?

And I"m not saying this administration is the only one at fault in this case, but taking one's property via eminent domain for a freakin parking lot is NOT right.  This is only more of the same.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 11, 2014, 08:04:14 pm
Want to know the absurdity of this BS?  Cows and drilling rigs have gotten along just fine in Texas for the past 60-70 years.
But what about tortoises?

One issue here appears to be the desire of the BLM to maintain a pristine environment for desert creatures, and getting them trampled by cattle is apparently not their plan.

A rational cattle rancher might find another parcel of land. Staying put, stopping rent payments, is not a viable long term business strategy.

This is not a strong legal case for the rancher.

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: EC on April 11, 2014, 08:08:14 pm
Maybe lawyer Mark Levin can explain the legal issues. Or lawyer Hugh Hewitt.

Terms and conditions for contracts CAN be unilaterally changed, and the other party can either negotiate, accept and honor the terms, or the deal is finished.

He's a squatter, now.

Maybe the entire family could have found other lands, to graze their herds. His herds are not large in number, and suitable or better lands are probably available in nearby Nevada, Utah and Arizona.

That would be hard exacting work. And of course he'd have to pay.

I believe at the end of this, thoughtful conservatives will see the rule of law aspects.

What has me pissed off is not the grazing rights - not my concern. It's the loss of the herd. A cow generation is 4 years - that is 25 generations of careful and selective breeding down the drain. Sold for peanuts to make burgers.
Let us assume he was raising beef cattle. Seems a fair assumption, since you don't open range dairy herds. Makes them kind of hard to milk. Unless his family lucked out, they have been buying bull semen at roughly $50 a straw for the last half century. Sure, maybe there was the odd inbreeding to fix a characteristic, but most of the time you buy it in. It usually takes two straws per cow to give you a 50:50 chance of a pregnancy.
Of those pregnancies, nearly 90% will be culls. Raised to about 18 months, then slaughtered. All the males and most of the females. Females at 4 years old (3 in the UK) are also slaughtered for their meat. It's pretty tough by then, but McDonalds and Walmart will buy anything.

That is a huge investment of time, money and attention - gone.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 11, 2014, 08:09:15 pm
The Bundys ranched on that 600 acres of land since around the time Nevada became a state in 1864. Then, all of a sudden a turtle was considered endangered, which it isn't, and the feds began seizing land. Law or not, it's not the right thing to do.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 11, 2014, 08:10:34 pm
Especially when one side disregards the rule of law.  General Motors ring any bells?

And I"m not saying this administration is the only one at fault in this case, but taking one's property via eminent domain for a freakin parking lot is NOT right.  This is only more of the same.
If you mean Kelo, I happen to agree. And the conservatives on the Court concurred with taking her house. That is one reason I don't go cultlike for anybody involved with politics.

I do not like that one bit. In my town, before Kelo, the Council decided to not use eminent domain in cases of residential properties.

So more than 20 years later, the pattern of development in a high traffic resort area, is broken by small residences next to giant parking structures, etc.

And if they decided to go the other direction, I think public opinion would weigh in again.

I don't recall all the details of Kelo, but if a parallel to my town could overlay it, the local residents would have stood with Ms. Kelo, to not take her home. I don't remember if they did, and the court ignored that.

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 11, 2014, 08:12:17 pm
But what about tortoises?

One issue here appears to be the desire of the BLM to maintain a pristine environment for desert creatures, and getting them trampled by cattle is apparently not their plan.

A rational cattle rancher might find another parcel of land. Staying put, stopping rent payments, is not a viable long term business strategy.

This is not a strong legal case for the rancher.

From what I've heard they're not even endangered.  Just because some dumb@ss can't fine one in the city...  OK different subject.

This has reference to the case I noted the other day on a different thread. 
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62362 (http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/62362)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 11, 2014, 08:18:24 pm
The Bundys ranched on that 600 acres of land since around the time Nevada became a state in 1864. Then, all of a sudden a turtle was considered endangered, which it isn't, and the feds began seizing land. Law or not, it's not the right thing to do.
Then what one does in our system of governance is get laws changed.

Maybe the political process will kick in and he'll get help in the form of a temporary injunction, barring the BLM from further action against his herd.

At the end of the day not everything in life is fair, nor does everything turn out your way.

BTW he should have paid the fees by the head, not by the acre. But he did not.

He could find other more suitable land, but he did not. He does NOT own the land in question.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 11, 2014, 08:21:35 pm
If you mean Kelo, I happen to agree. And the conservatives on the Court concurred with taking her house. That is one reason I don't go cultlike for anybody involved with politics.

I do not like that one bit. In my town, before Kelo, the Council decided to not use eminent domain in cases of residential properties.

So more than 20 years later, the pattern of development in a high traffic resort area, is broken by small residences next to giant parking structures, etc.

And if they decided to go the other direction, I think public opinion would weigh in again.

I don't recall all the details of Kelo, but if a parallel to my town could overlay it, the local residents would have stood with Ms. Kelo, to not take her home. I don't remember if they did, and the court ignored that.

That's precisely what I was referring to as well as the confiscation of General Motors, turning it into Government Motors, then blessing the unions with a Christmas present.  I don't agree with any of it and the court be d*mned. 

As I said days ago, there is far more than meets the eye here.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 11, 2014, 08:25:30 pm
His family ranched it for over 140 years. Back then Las Vegas and Reno wasn't even cities. There were other ranchers, but the government ran them off. The Bundy's are the last ranchers, and wouldn't allow themselves to be intimidated by the government. You can defend Reid and the government all you want, but what they did was unconstitutional, regardless what the law said...after the facts. I wouldn't be surprised if they are over-run with turtles.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 11, 2014, 08:26:36 pm
Quote
As I said days ago, there is far more than meets the eye here.

Yes, there is!   :beer:
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 11, 2014, 08:34:20 pm
The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment

*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor.

**One last thought: For those conservatives saying that since BLM arrived in the late 90s, it’s the law now, well, so is Obamacare.
- See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/#sthash.l9vh4ZtY.dpuf

http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/ (http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: ABX on April 11, 2014, 08:49:00 pm
The Real Story Behind The Bundy Ranch Harassment

*UPDATE: Those who say Bundy is a “deadbeat” are making inaccurate claims. Bundy has in fact paid fees to Clark County, Nevada in an arrangement pre-dating the BLM. The BLM arrived much later, changed the details of the setup without consulting with Bundy — or any other rancher — and then began systematically driving out cattle and ranchers. Bundy refused to pay BLM, especially after they demanded he reduce his heard’s head count down to a level that would not sustain his ranch. Bundy OWNS the water and forage rights to this land. He paid for these rights. He built fences, established water ways, and constructed roads with his own money, with the approval of Nevada and BLM. When BLM started using his fees to run him off the land and harassing him, he ceased paying. So should BLM reimburse him for managing the land and for the confiscation of his water and forage rights?

Cliven Bundy’s problem isn’t that he didn’t pay — he did — or that his cattle bother tortoises — they don’t — it’s that he’s not a Reid donor.

**One last thought: For those conservatives saying that since BLM arrived in the late 90s, it’s the law now, well, so is Obamacare.
- See more at: http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/#sthash.l9vh4ZtY.dpuf

http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/ (http://danaloeschradio.com/the-real-story-of-the-bundy-ranch/)

Just bumping that one. Sounds like an Ex Post Facto action by BLM as well as everything else we've discussed.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 11, 2014, 09:06:38 pm
Pointing a scatter gun into the air, and blasting away.....Harry Reid, fracking, solar, doesn't make a stronger case.

It is downright irresponsible urging a pickup full of armed militia yokels to go get shot at, for such a weak legal case.
Add to scatter gun claims, are now Brazilian interests are going to take over beef, and Chinese interests going to take over the solar--after the BLM drives the cattle rancher off, at the behest of Harry Reid.

Tea Party websites are egging people on, over this situation.

I'm worried some knuckleheaded follower is going to get himself hurt, or hurt somebody else over something they don't even understand.

On a more enlightened level, Isn't Gov. Sandoval a player? Couldn't the Nevada AG go into federal court, and ask for an injunction to stay these actions by BLM?



Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 11, 2014, 09:50:33 pm
His family ranched it for over 140 years. Back then Las Vegas and Reno wasn't even cities. There were other ranchers, but the government ran them off. The Bundy's are the last ranchers, and wouldn't allow themselves to be intimidated by the government. You can defend Reid and the government all you want, but what they did was unconstitutional, regardless what the law said...after the facts. I wouldn't be surprised if they are over-run with turtles.
My great great uncle was born nearby 145 years ago. So by your criteria I prevail, right?

(1869 Nye County Nevada)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 11, 2014, 09:52:06 pm
My great great uncle was born nearby 145 years ago. So by your criteria I prevail, right?

(1869 Nye County Nevada)

Did he stay and cultivate the land? The Bundy ranch has been in the same spot since around that time.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 11, 2014, 10:20:55 pm
Did he stay and cultivate the land? The Bundy ranch has been in the same spot since around that time.
Yes he stayed for awhile. Depends on the definition of cultivate. Not much "cultivation" of open range.

But then he moved on to greener pastures, which did require building a canal for irrigation purposes, getting land granted from another state, etc. Some of them still there. In the middle of nowhere, not sexy at all, bitter climate, etc.  And they wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

But my father did want to be somewhere else, which was with my mother. And just to make sure, they moved back and forth a couple of times, between the two family locations.

In the end SoCal won over. Why shouldn't it? My family has been out west including California since the 1840s. Gold Rush. Mormons.



Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: mystery-ak on April 11, 2014, 10:38:01 pm
Breaking: Sen. Harry Reid Behind BLM Land Grab of Bundy Ranch (http://www.infowars.com/breaking-sen-harry-reid-behind-blm-land-grab-of-bundy-ranch/)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Gazoo on April 11, 2014, 11:14:05 pm
With all due respect, Mr. Bundy is blowing smoke up everyone's collective dresses.  Facts, rather than opinion, can be gleaned from the various court documents which, stripped of emotion, clearly show that Mr. Bundy was originally granted a permit (a so-called "ephemeral permit") to graze the land in question - which is not the private land he owns that adjoins the grazing land in question - and that in 1993 he didn't like the terms on which he was offered a renewal of that permit, so he simply refused the renewal, stopped paying the grazing fees, and continued to graze his cattle on the land in the so-called Allotment.  In 2000 he decided that wasn't enough, so he started grazing his cattle on federal land to which he had never had a permit in the first place.

And there is no such thing as taking adverse possession of lands owned by the sovereign, which in this case is the federal government, so it doesn't matter how long he and his family have been grazing their cattle on federal land, whether with or without a permit.  He has no ownership claim to the grazing land, he is a trespasser, and the federal government is entitled to have him and his cattle removed.

If the admin will allow it, I have copies of some of the other court documents which I can let them upload to the forum's server so everyone can review them.

You are on the federal governments side of this? Seriously? They are turning this into Waco 2.0 and you post this? Who cares, it is about Harry Reid and greed. Are you the latest troll to post here?

Quote
US Senator Joins Critics of Federal Cattle Roundup

LAS VEGAS April 10, 2014 (AP)

By KEN RITTER Associated Press
 
A Republican U.S. senator added his voice Wednesday to critics of a federal cattle roundup fought by a Nevada rancher who claims longstanding grazing rights on remote public rangeland about 80 miles northeast of Las Vegas

Sen. Dean Heller of Nevada said he told new U.S. Bureau of Land Management chief Neil Kornze in Washington, D.C., that law-abiding Nevadans shouldn't be penalized by an "overreaching" agency.

Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval pointed earlier to what he called "an atmosphere of intimidation," resulting from the roundup and said he believed constitutional rights were being trampled.

Heller said he heard from local officials, residents and the Nevada Cattlemen's Association and remained "extremely concerned about the size of this closure and disruptions with access to roads, water and electrical infrastructure."

The federal government has shut down a scenic but windswept area about half the size of the state of Delaware to round up about 900 cattle it says are trespassing.

BLM and National Park Service officials didn't immediately respond Wednesday to criticisms of the roundup that started Saturday and prompted the closure of the 1,200-square-mile area through May 12.

It's seen by some as the latest battle over state and federal land rights in a state with deep roots in those disputes, including the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 1970s and '80s. Nevada, where various federal agencies manage or control more than 80 percent of the land, is among several Western states where ranchers have challenged federal land ownership.

The current showdown pits rancher Cliven Bundy's claims of ancestral rights to graze his cows on open range against federal claims that the cattle are trespassing on arid and fragile habitat of the endangered desert tortoise. Bundy has said he owns about 500 branded cattle on the range and claims the other 400 targeted for roundup are his, too.

BLM and Park Service officials see threats in Bundy's promise to "do whatever it takes" to protect his property and in his characterization that the dispute constitutes a "range war."

U.S. Rep. Steven Horsford, D-Las Vegas, noted that BLM officials were enforcing federal court orders that Bundy remove his animals. The legal battle has been waged for decades.

Kornze, the new BLM chief, is familiar with the area. He's a natural resource manager who grew up in Elko, Nev., and served previously as a senior adviser to Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid aide Kristen Orthman said her boss "hopes the trespassing cattle are rounded up safely so the issue can be resolved."

Sandoval, a former state attorney general and federal district court judge, weighed in late Tuesday after several days of media coverage about blocked roads and armed federal agents fanning out around Bundy's ranch while contractors using helicopters and vehicles herd cows into portable pens in rugged and remote areas.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/nevada-governor-decries-blm-rancher-dispute-23265149 (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/nevada-governor-decries-blm-rancher-dispute-23265149)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: DCPatriot on April 11, 2014, 11:23:38 pm
You are on the federal governments side of this? Seriously? They are turning this into Waco 2.0 and you post this? Who cares, it is about Harry Reid and greed. Are you the latest troll to post here?

Gazoo!

Whether you agree with his POV or not, he provides an intelligent, fact-based rebuttal on many broad statements said on behalf of Bundy.

I prefer more of a "We report  post....you decide" mentality.  Don't you?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 11, 2014, 11:43:16 pm
You are on the federal governments side of this? Seriously? They are turning this into Waco 2.0 and you post this? Who cares, it is about Harry Reid and greed. Are you the latest troll to post here?

Facts (should) trump emotions for people capable of understanding the situation. Why does he lose in court for the last 21 years, long before Harry Reid or Barrack Obama?

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Gazoo on April 11, 2014, 11:53:40 pm
Facts (should) trump emotions for people capable of understanding the situation. Why does he lose in court for the last 21 years, long before Harry Reid or Barrack Obama?

Common sense should trump your know it all facts. Only recently did anyone care about where the cows grazed. Common sense should trump your thought that this man deserved to be seized Waco style, for Harry Reids greed.  Emotions? Wouldn't you be emotional if your ranch was raided and you were not a criminal?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 11, 2014, 11:55:26 pm
Common sense should trump your know it all facts. Only recently did anyone care about where the cows grazed. Common sense should trump your thought that this man deserved to be seized Waco style, for Harry Reids greed.  Emotions? Wouldn't you be emotional if your ranch was raided and you were not a criminal?

Agree!
Quote
shady builder Jim Rhodes (the four lane improved highway to Searchlight goes right by Reid's land). Then there are the shenanigans involving the Coyote Springs development of lawyer/friend Harvey Whittemore where Reid moved mountains to obtain transmission line and desert tortoise rights � now defunct the land is being repositioned for largess from a solar plant operator. Currently there is the Anderson Dairy scandal where dairyman (with real cows) and Republican member of the State Assembly Ed Goedart was forced to ship milk to California, then ship California milk back to Nevada while Reid supporter Andersen Dairy is given a waiver.
  http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php (http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Gazoo on April 12, 2014, 12:07:56 am
Agree!   http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php (http://www.futurnamics.com/reid.php)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWkS8tPZFRg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWkS8tPZFRg)

You don't have to buy the dudes book to know that Reid was not vetted and protected and mirrored by the radical Obama progressives.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Gazoo on April 12, 2014, 12:16:04 am
Gazoo!

Whether you agree with his POV or not, he provides an intelligent, fact-based rebuttal on many broad statements said on behalf of Bundy.

I prefer more of a "We report  post....you decide" mentality.  Don't you?

And I posted my POV. Knock yourself out valuing opinions. Reply to them. If you don't like my replies to them, lump it and don't read them.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 12, 2014, 01:25:16 am
Nevada Reports – Feds Shutting Down Cell Tower Operations To Hide Activity Around Bundy Ranch….

If a shot is fired in the dessert, and no-one is able to hear/see it, does it make a sound ?
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bk9tXwwCMAAJGa5.jpg)

Quote
Marie   @Tmariestweets 
Follow
Bundy family reports cell towers near ranch have been shut down,preventing communication & video uploads. #BundyRanch

 
3:27 PM - 11 Apr 2014


403 Retweets   105 favorites   
Reply
Retweet
Favorite
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: mystery-ak on April 12, 2014, 01:35:06 am
Sean will cover this story at 9central on his show at Fox
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 12, 2014, 02:25:29 am
Common sense should trump your know it all facts. Only recently did anyone care about where the cows grazed. Common sense should trump your thought that this man deserved to be seized Waco style, for Harry Reids greed.  Emotions? Wouldn't you be emotional if your ranch was raided and you were not a criminal?
".....know it all" facts?  You're hurting my "feelings."
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: ABX on April 12, 2014, 03:33:13 am
FAA just declared the space over the ranch a no fly zone with only BLM and relief (ie emergency) activity allowed.

Quote
NOTAM : 4/1687
 
FDC 4/1687 ZLA NV..AIRSPACE MESQUITE, NV..TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS WITHIN AREA DEFINED AS 3NM RADIUS OF 364624N/1141113W (MMM71 RADIAL AT 4.3NM) SFC-3000FT AGL LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATION. PURSUANT TO 14 CFR SECTION 91.137(A)(1) TEMPORARY FLIGHT RESTRICTIONS ARE IN EFFECT. ONLY RELIEF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS UNDER DIRECTION OF BLM ARE AUTHORIZED IN THE AIRSPACE. BLM TELEPHONE 702-335-3191 IS IN CHARGE OF ON SCENE EMERGENCY RESPONSE ACTIVITY. LOS ANGELES /ZLA/ ARTCC TELEPHONE 661-265-8205 IS THE FAA COORDINATION FACILITY. 1404112140-1405111434

http://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/notam_actual_4_1687.html
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: R4 TrumPence on April 12, 2014, 04:28:00 am
The hardest part of getting licensed in real estate in NV was the state law test!  I have taken 3 state tests now and NV was the hardest and craziest and most of it dealt with the BLM! That is one agency that needs to go!!!  The regulations and the oversight are gestapo like!!!
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: DCPatriot on April 12, 2014, 04:58:04 am
And I posted my POV. Knock yourself out valuing opinions. Reply to them. If you don't like my replies to them, lump it and don't read them.

Then please stop calling a poster with a minority POV a troll.

Thank you.   :patriot:
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 12, 2014, 05:10:57 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bk-96rWCQAElQfP.jpg)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 12, 2014, 05:13:22 am
One of the big confusions here is the claim and misuse of term 'rent'. These old grazing grants are not renting in the general sense. These were contracts with the rancher and State which basically gave the rancher 'use ownership' while the State owns the land. A lot of times, in order to make it the same as ownership, the rights were contracted for 999 years.  Tens if not hundreds of millions of acres around this country are held by ranchers this way, it is one of the foundations of the large ranching system.

When the contracts were handed from the State to the Federal Government, one of the caviats were that these existing contracts would be honored.

This is the crux of the issue, the BLM has come in and claimed right to both land ownership and breaking the contract on usage ownership.


Here is the scary part. Millions of these acres were legally used by ranch owners to sell usage rights to developers and in some areas, subdivisions have grown up on this land. If this trend continues, there will be nothing stopping the BLM from coming in and taking property from millions of homeowners around the country.

I wouldn't be surprised if you dig into the deed history of many people on this site, you'll find that your homes fall under this. Your land and home are simply transfers of usage rights, not true landowner rights.

The contract wasn't dishonored. Mr. Bundy voided the contract by refusing to pay the fees.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 12, 2014, 05:27:44 am
The hardest part of getting licensed in real estate in NV was the state law test!  I have taken 3 state tests now and NV was the hardest and craziest and most of it dealt with the BLM! That is one agency that needs to go!!!  The regulations and the oversight are gestapo like!!!
BLM is federal, so that part is not exclusive to Nevada. Overall 86% of the land in Nevada is government owned.

I hope some trigger happy militiaman doesn't damage the conservative cause, because of what he "feels" the laws should be.  An act by militia will be tied to the Tea Party, to conservatism, and to Republicans.

A group that often proclaims we are a Constitutional Republic, that we are governed by laws not by men, had best sit still and take stock of what the facts are in this case, instead of "shooting from the hip."

There is a bunch of goofy stuff being claimed here, that is simply not accurate. Chinese, Brazilians, solar, fracking, Reno, Laughlin, etc.

I hope Bundy gets some legal and political help, gets his day in court again, etc. Unless he is hell bent on losing, he needs to be reasonable, willing to compromise.

Anybody with a serious mind, would have to consider his action to become $300,000 in arrears in grazing fees, puts him at a disadvantage in a court case.

In America, when we lose in court, we don't start firing guns. He's lost in court numerous times.

 
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: NavyCanDo on April 12, 2014, 05:30:15 am
America, home of the free.    It was a great ride while it lasted.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: R4 TrumPence on April 12, 2014, 07:41:16 am
BLM is federal, so that part is not exclusive to Nevada. Overall 86% of the land in Nevada is government owned.

I hope some trigger happy militiaman doesn't damage the conservative cause, because of what he "feels" the laws should be.  An act by militia will be tied to the Tea Party, to conservatism, and to Republicans.

A group that often proclaims we are a Constitutional Republic, that we are governed by laws not by men, had best sit still and take stock of what the facts are in this case, instead of "shooting from the hip."

There is a bunch of goofy stuff being claimed here, that is simply not accurate. Chinese, Brazilians, solar, fracking, Reno, Laughlin, etc.

I hope Bundy gets some legal and political help, gets his day in court again, etc. Unless he is hell bent on losing, he needs to be reasonable, willing to compromise.

Anybody with a serious mind, would have to consider his action to become $300,000 in arrears in grazing fees, puts him at a disadvantage in a court case.

In America, when we lose in court, we don't start firing guns. He's lost in court numerous times.

 

I know it is federal, but it is quite a bit on the NV test. Which is the only part I had to take BTW.  My problem is exactly what you just posted. STATE LAND!  So why are the BLM involved at all?

If you follow what Bundy and others have been saying, there is a lot more to it, than he just not paying that "fee" all these years.

plus there is no reason for the BLM to go in all gestapo like we live in a banana republic!
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 12, 2014, 01:20:35 pm

I hope some trigger happy militiaman doesn't damage the conservative cause, because of what he "feels" the laws should be.  An act by militia will be tied to the Tea Party, to conservatism, and to Republicans.


The way I see it, the BLM is creating laws they "feel" are right.  Same BS as the EPA and numerous other federal agencies that are operating well outside of their jurisdiction. 

The common response is "if you don't like it, go to Congress and change the law".    Would that also apply to the other side also?  But they don't seem to have to do that, they just make it up as they go along.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 12, 2014, 01:46:27 pm
Quote
KadenceDay ‏@DayKadence  · 1h 
Tweet this till everyone gets their Bundy facts straight. He's NOT breaking ANY law! #BundyRanch pic.twitter.com/cFTRe9Ji2a
 ht @denisedwheeler

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlACbxhCEAAhYRb.jpg)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 12, 2014, 02:31:32 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlACbxhCEAAhYRb.jpg)

I tried saying this early on and no one seemed to hear.

The problem came from his cattle "trespassing" on the BLM's (ours) land.  It was said even the BLM does no know where the imaginary line is located between the ranch and the state/federal lands. 

If they are so concerned about the turtles, why don't they build a fence?  Must not be about turtles huh? 

Fences make good  neighbors but since the feds cannot even build one on the southern border, I suppose one here is completely out of the question.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 12, 2014, 02:39:26 pm
I tried saying this early on and no one seemed to hear.

The problem came from his cattle "trespassing" on the BLM's (ours) land.  It was said even the BLM does no know where the imaginary line is located between the ranch and the state/federal lands. 

If they are so concerned about the turtles, why don't they build a fence?  Must not be about turtles huh? 

Fences make good  neighbors but since the feds cannot even build one on the southern border, I suppose one here is completely out of the question.

The same people who are decrying Bundy's actions  would have been one of the ones decrying to tossing of tea into Boston harbor...
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 12, 2014, 02:50:06 pm
The same people who are decrying Bundy's actions  would have been one of the ones decrying to tossing of tea into Boston harbor...

LOL, you have a good point there. 
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 12, 2014, 03:28:03 pm
LOL, you have a good point there.

Maybe you're right, but that still doesn't mean that Bundy is not in the wrong here.

There is a highway that I've traveled daily for decades in South Florida, last year the State government made it a toll road and suddenly I was paying to use a road that I'd used for free for years.

If I run those toll booths, I will be arrested, and no matter how hard I try to argue that I don't agree with the decision to transform free roads to tolled roads, that I am not getting anything extra for those tolls, and that I have some sort of pre-eminent domain right to use those roads for free as a result of having always used those roads for free, the descendants of those people who threw the tea into the harbor set up the system of government that we all currently live under, and the law that was enacted which took my daily route to work from free to a tolled route, was enacted according to the governing mechanisms that they basically set into place, albeit bloated and dysfunctional.

The same basic situation applies to the Bundy case.

We can start to overthrow the government over situations like these, and God knows I think we need a whole new Constitution and government, but as that crazy old fart in the city council said, both sides better start setting up some funeral plans.

The tree of liberty is refreshed with the blood of both patriots and tyrants.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 12, 2014, 03:39:06 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlACbxhCEAAhYRb.jpg)

The State gave the land over to the Federal government to manage it. That is as common as you owning rental property and giving the management aspect over to a management company.

If Bundy refuses to pay fees to the Feds, he's wrong... it was the State who gave the land over to the Feds to manage and collect the grazing fees.

I am as anti-Federal government as they come, but I don't see how Bundy is right here.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Gazoo on April 12, 2014, 03:42:09 pm
Then please stop calling a poster with a minority POV a troll.

Thank you.   :patriot:

Why do you constantly defend people not engaged in real conversation of the same goals as most here; dire concern for our country to fix America from the brink? Ever notice they never engage in conversation of any other subject than this current Bundy one and defending the GOP Establishment? Who are you, their keeper? Let them speak for themselves.

Who are you to tell me how to post? Go whine and get me banned, I really don't care. Few here call these trolls out. When I have. Think real hard, about their reaction. They complained I cussed and showed bad mod manners. Then you pointed out I have no seniority here, they do. Whoopie flip! They never engage in the debate of their POV or goals. They ignore and attack when asked their political affiliation. There is a reason one of them has been banned from every site. Most are liberal posters recruited from DU from another site that failed at mixing conservatives with republicans. I had better debate with Libby than these people. So until I see differently you bet your sweet red-headed loving ass, I will call them trolls with the goal of disrupting and creating division.

This http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/recent_lease_sales.html  (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/recent_lease_sales.html)  is what they are defending. Only progressives are defending this. It is one thing to be a jerk like TOS and ban all in rampages for being trolls. It is another to sit by and watch them ruin a website with you as their nanny. Defending this issue and Harry Reid is quite odd. Let them defend their side of things. If they are real in their POV it would be clear too many here by now, don't you think? They don't need a protector.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 12, 2014, 03:47:43 pm
Why do you constantly defend people not engaged in real conversation of the same goals as most here; dire concern for our country to fix America from the brink? Ever notice they never engage in conversation of any other subject than this current Bundy one and defending the GOP Establishment? Who are you, their keeper? Let them speak for themselves.

Who are you to tell me how to post? Go whine and get me banned, I really don't care. Few here call these trolls out. When I have. Think real hard, about their reaction. They complained I cussed and showed bad mod manners. Then you pointed out I have no seniority here, they do. Whoopie flip! They never engage in the debate of their POV or goals. They ignore and attack when asked their political affiliation. There is a reason one of them has been banned from every site. Most are liberal posters recruited from DU from another site that failed at mixing conservatives with republicans. I had better debate with Libby than these people. So until I see differently you bet your sweet red-headed loving ass, I will call them trolls with the goal of disrupting and creating division.

This http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/recent_lease_sales.html  (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/recent_lease_sales.html)  is what they are defending. Only progressives are defending this. It is one thing to be a jerk like TOS and ban all in rampages for being trolls. It is another to sit by and watch them ruin a website with you as their nanny. Defending this issue and Harry Reid is quite odd. Let them defend their side of things. If they are real in their POV it would be clear too many here by now, don't you think? They don't need a protector.

Name calling in a debate Gazoo, is a sign of immaturity.

Grow up.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: EC on April 12, 2014, 03:49:05 pm
Gazoo - a total aside:

Thank you for reminding me of Libby (or k8tee??) I miss her rather a lot. She were a tough ass, could hold her corner against all comers, and was a very sweet person.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Gazoo on April 12, 2014, 03:53:30 pm
Gazoo - a total aside:

Thank you for reminding me of Libby (or k8tee??) I miss her rather a lot. She were a tough ass, could hold her corner against all comers, and was a very sweet person.

I enjoyed debating Libby. She was real. Have a good day EC!
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Gazoo on April 12, 2014, 03:55:29 pm
Name calling in a debate Gazoo, is a sign of immaturity.

Grow up.

Where did I name call?  If you don't like my post don't read it or report me.

Thanks for your valuable ever so wise, mature input.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 12, 2014, 04:02:41 pm
Where did I name call?  If you don't like my post don't read it or report me.

Thanks for your valuable ever so wise, mature input.

Being called names for having an opinion that's not "popular" with other posters is what makes TOS what it is, and not what myst wants this place to be. I don't want to ignore your posts because then I'd miss the other valuable points that you make, but calling other people names because you don't agree with their point of view is wrong and immature, so grow up.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: flowers on April 12, 2014, 04:51:03 pm
BREAKING NEWS: BLM ends roundup of Bundy cattle

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25230368/major-development-in-bunkerville-cattle-battle-between-cliven-bundy-and-blm

Quote
LAS VEGAS -- The Bureau of Land Management has announced it will stop the roundup of cattle owned by rancher Cliven Bundy. The BLM says the animals have been illegally grazing on public lands for 20 years.

The BLM made the announcement Saturday morning, a week after rangers started gathering the animals off land near Gold Butte.

The agency says it is concerned about the safety of its employees and the public.

The I-Team has learned the deal to end the gather was brokered by Clark County Sheriff Doug Gillespie.

According to sources, the BLM wants to proceed with the sale of the cattle already gathered during the roundup but is reportedly willing to share the revenue from the sale with Bundy.

Sheriff Gillespie has been negotiating with Bundy
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: musiclady on April 12, 2014, 04:59:03 pm
I enjoyed debating Libby. She was real. Have a good day EC!

You should have tried debating Libby about women's "rights"..................i.e. abortion.

She was a total jerk.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 12, 2014, 05:09:40 pm
You should have tried debating Libby about women's "rights"..................i.e. abortion.

She was a total jerk.

I never posted there. I must have missed some "good" stuff!  :whistle:
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: mystery-ak on April 12, 2014, 05:10:31 pm
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-cliven-bundy-to-meet-with-clark-co-sheriff/ (http://www.infowars.com/breaking-cliven-bundy-to-meet-with-clark-co-sheriff/)

LIVE: Clark Co. Sheriff Announces BLM ‘Will Cease Operation,’ Land to be Open to Public

 

Infowars.com
April 12, 2014

Clark County Sheriff Douglas C. Gillespie just announced that the Bureau of Land Management will cease their persecution of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy. He also stated that the land will remain public land. Stay tuned for updates and live coverage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epPo7OOfxws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epPo7OOfxws)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: musiclady on April 12, 2014, 05:12:53 pm
I never posted there. I must have missed some "good" stuff!  :whistle:

She was good at pretending to be a decent and reasonable person, but she had very long claws when it came to the 'right' to kill babies.

There were others far worse, but she definitely wasn't any more rational than the majority of leftists out there.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: musiclady on April 12, 2014, 05:13:47 pm
http://www.infowars.com/breaking-cliven-bundy-to-meet-with-clark-co-sheriff/ (http://www.infowars.com/breaking-cliven-bundy-to-meet-with-clark-co-sheriff/)

LIVE: Clark Co. Sheriff Announces BLM ‘Will Cease Operation,’ Land to be Open to Public


Infowars.com
April 12, 2014

Clark County Sheriff Douglas C. Gillespie just announced that the Bureau of Land Management will cease their persecution of cattle rancher Cliven Bundy. He also stated that the land will remain public land. Stay tuned for updates and live coverage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epPo7OOfxws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epPo7OOfxws)

I'll be interested if finding out how this came about!
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: flowers on April 12, 2014, 05:57:23 pm
I'll be interested if finding out how this came about!
I am thinking Harry Reid had a bit to do with this event today. The powers that be didn't want anything messy before the midterms.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: musiclady on April 12, 2014, 06:55:54 pm
I am thinking Harry Reid had a bit to do with this event today. The powers that be didn't want anything messy before the midterms.

Good probability.  Filthy leftists trying to hide filthy behavior.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: DCPatriot on April 12, 2014, 07:34:45 pm


Why do you constantly defend people not engaged in real conversation of the same goals as most here; dire concern for our country to fix America from the brink? Ever notice they never engage in conversation of any other subject than this current Bundy one and defending the GOP Establishment? Who are you, their keeper? Let them speak for themselves.


Who are you to tell me how to post? Go whine and get me banned, I really don't care. Few here call these trolls out. When I have. Think real hard, about their reaction. They complained I cussed and showed bad mod manners. Then you pointed out I have no seniority here, they do. Whoopie flip! They never engage in the debate of their POV or goals. They ignore and attack when asked their political affiliation. There is a reason one of them has been banned from every site. Most are liberal posters recruited from DU from another site that failed at mixing conservatives with republicans. I had better debate with Libby than these people. So until I see differently you bet your sweet red-headed loving ass, I will call them trolls with the goal of disrupting and creating division.

This http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/recent_lease_sales.html  (http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/oil_and_gas/recent_lease_sales.html)  is what they are defending. Only progressives are defending this. It is one thing to be a jerk like TOS and ban all in rampages for being trolls. It is another to sit by and watch them ruin a website with you as their nanny. Defending this issue and Harry Reid is quite odd. Let them defend their side of things. If they are real in their POV it would be clear too many here by now, don't you think? They don't need a protector.

Gazoo!   You're beginning to remind me of Johnny Tyler (Billy Bob Thornton)  in Tombstone.   "I thought we was friends!"

It's not the poster I defend....it's the RIGHT of the minority opinion to be accepted and tolerated without somebody impugning their motives.

As far as all the other stuff in your post....    :shrug:   KMA!
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: EC on April 12, 2014, 07:53:36 pm
You should have tried debating Libby about women's "rights"..................i.e. abortion.

She was a total jerk.

I missed those. Figure if I father a child, or pick one up, I look after it - otherwise not my concern.

She did have some sharp insights on the up and down sides of term limits though.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 12, 2014, 08:11:28 pm
The way I see it, the BLM is creating laws they "feel" are right.  Same BS as the EPA and numerous other federal agencies that are operating well outside of their jurisdiction. 

The common response is "if you don't like it, go to Congress and change the law".    Would that also apply to the other side also?  But they don't seem to have to do that, they just make it up as they go along.
Apparently the BLM is operating under statutes dating to at least 1934.

It appears the popular opinion here is relying on Alex Jones for information, but it could get even worse than that.

We could all get stirred up about the management by fedgov of our interstate highways and waterways, get ourselves some camo costumes and guns, and go protest alongside the roads. Maybe cause a wreck or two, before we start firing.

I just can't decide which outlandish stuff to start with. Fracking, solar, beef, China, Brazil, Reno, Laughlin, Reid, Obama, Pelosi.

They all been plotting this since 1934?

BTW it is 192 miles from Bunkerville Nevada to Circleville Utah, Butch Cassidy's hometown. (Robert Leroy Parker)

He specialized in the non-violent art of robbing without killing. Highly intelligent, carefully planned, successful.  No camo gear needed.

Hopefully those involved in Bunkerville can come away without injury. But I worry that low information Militia will feel deprived of their fight some day soon, and make a mess of the conservative's chances in 2014 and 2016.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 12, 2014, 09:59:47 pm
Maybe you're right, but that still doesn't mean that Bundy is not in the wrong here.

There is a highway that I've traveled daily for decades in South Florida, last year the State government made it a toll road and suddenly I was paying to use a road that I'd used for free for years.


The tree of liberty is refreshed with the blood of both patriots and tyrants.

Don't think there has ever been a fight or disagreement where one side is totally right and the other totally wrong, that's the way of things.

Bad comparison on the toll roads.  They tried that here and were told no, not going to happen.  They are not free to travel, I paid for them the first time as I'm sure you did for yours. 

Agreed on the last and I'm afraid it's getting closer and closer.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 12, 2014, 10:05:39 pm
Don't think there has ever been a fight or disagreement where one side is totally right and the other totally wrong, that's the way of things.

Bad comparison on the toll roads.  They tried that here and were told no, not going to happen.  They are not free to travel, I paid for them the first time as I'm sure you did for yours. 

Agreed on the last and I'm afraid it's getting closer and closer.

We don't disagree on till roads at all.

You either pay the new tolls or you find other roads to travel.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 12, 2014, 11:03:26 pm
Apparently the BLM is operating under statutes dating to at least 1934.

It appears the popular opinion here is relying on Alex Jones for information, but it could get even worse than that.

We could all get stirred up about the management by fedgov of our interstate highways and waterways, get ourselves some camo costumes and guns, and go protest alongside the roads. Maybe cause a wreck or two, before we start firing.

I just can't decide which outlandish stuff to start with. Fracking, solar, beef, China, Brazil, Reno, Laughlin, Reid, Obama, Pelosi.

They all been plotting this since 1934?

BTW it is 192 miles from Bunkerville Nevada to Circleville Utah, Butch Cassidy's hometown. (Robert Leroy Parker)

He specialized in the non-violent art of robbing without killing. Highly intelligent, carefully planned, successful.  No camo gear needed.

Hopefully those involved in Bunkerville can come away without injury. But I worry that low information Militia will feel deprived of their fight some day soon, and make a mess of the conservative's chances in 2014 and 2016.

They've been rounding up turtles since 1934?  Probably not eh?

Have heard of Alex Jones, but don't really follow.  have a link?

Outlandish?  How about confiscation of private property, I.E. the cattle?  what's next, the ranch?

Low information militia? Retired LE, ex military?  The ones I know are far from low info people.

Started this a while back and got hung up on the phone.

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 12, 2014, 11:06:28 pm
We don't disagree on till roads at all.

You either pay the new tolls or you find other roads to travel.

 They exist in the cities, but so far we have kept them at bay in the country.   
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 12, 2014, 11:47:33 pm
They exist in the cities, but so far we have kept them at bay in the country.

The point being that once they become toll roads you pay them.

Once the BLM was handed the management of those lands by the State of Nevada, you have to pay the grazing fees to whoever is collecting them.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 12, 2014, 11:55:37 pm
The point being that once they become toll roads you pay them.

Once the BLM was handed the management of those lands by the State of Nevada, you have to pay the grazing fees to whoever is collecting them.

The standoff proves that Nevada needs to change the way it operates. The people weren't being served by the BLM, but pocketbooks were. Sometimes you just have to take a stand and say, "enough is enough". People have rebelled against red light cameras after laws took effect and won. What's so different about this? There are other times that fed up people rebelled to change things. This is nothing more than a scheme to run ranchers off their land and using the government to do so. I hope this started something big. It's past time the government needs a shakeup.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 13, 2014, 12:17:30 am
The standoff proves that Nevada needs to change the way it operates. The people weren't being served by the BLM, but pocketbooks were. Sometimes you just have to take a stand and say, "enough is enough". People have rebelled against red light cameras after laws took effect and won. What's so different about this? There are other times that fed up people rebelled to change things. This is nothing more than a scheme to run ranchers off their land and using the government to do so. I hope this started something big. It's past time the government needs a shakeup.

You mean the Bundy family wasn't "being served".

 Most of the people of Nevada didn't appear to give much of a Shiite.

They keep re-electing Harry Reid.

Btw, this law has been in place for decades, and it's been upheld by the Courts.

If you don't agree with all that, then all you have left is armed insurrection to overthrow the Government. 
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 13, 2014, 12:37:51 am
This is nothing more than a scheme to run ranchers off their land and using the government to do so. I hope this started something big. It's past time the government needs a shakeup.

BTW... the Bundy family has been fighting this battle for twenty years, which means that they had the same issues with the Feds while W was in office, and that ranchers were being run off their land while "our guy" was in office.

Where were the militias then?

We're being fed a whole lot of malarkey here.

Bundy is simply an anarchist who refuses to recognize the legitimacy of the US government.

Quote
Bundy principally opposes the United States’ motion for summary judgment on the ground that this court lacks jurisdiction because the United States does not own the public lands in question. As this court previously ruled in United States v. Bundy, Case No. CV-S- 98-531-JBR (RJJ) (D. Nev. Nov. 4, 1998), “the public lands in Nevada are the property of the United States because the United States has held title to those public lands since 1848, when Mexico ceded the land to the United States.” CV-S-98-531 at 8 (ci

http://www.thewildlifenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Order-US-v.-Bundy-7-9-13.pdf

If Bundy is claiming that the United States do not own that land, isn't he then claiming to be a citizen of Mexico?:
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: evadR on April 13, 2014, 12:59:23 am
I dunno.

Did the feds show up to evict Bundy while "our guy" was in office? Did they send in armed troops and snipers?
Maybe that's why the militias showed up.

just askin'
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Fishrrman on April 13, 2014, 01:06:43 am
Loki wrote above:
[[ In this instance that is not the case.  The BLM is not making up the law as they go along.  They are following the law as written and as construed by the courts, including the Supreme Court. ]]

That may well be true. But if the BLM was solidly "in the right" in this case, why did they suddenly decide to pack it in not long after it was revealed that there may have been some shady doin's by Harry Reid and some Chinese investors -- looking for land on which to build a solar farm?

When a government agency has a solid case -- and considering that the BLM, like every other federal agency is probably thoroughly permeated by leftist ideology -- they have no need to back off. I don't for one minute believe that they were retreating because of a "fear of violence", particularly if the law and past court decisions are on their side.

Nope. Somethin' else is goin' on here...
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: evadR on April 13, 2014, 01:27:04 am
I dunno.

Did the feds show up to evict Bundy while "our guy" was in office? Did they send in armed troops and snipers?
Maybe that's why the malitias showed up.

just askin'

That is a decent question.  At least from the court documents and whatnot it seems that the BLM people were trying to find a way to work things out with Mr. Bundy and put a lot of time into it.

I am inclined to think that the prod that finally got them moving was the impending suit by an environut group over this turtle thing.

But even so, I do not think an armed militia is the proper response to this because Mr. Bundy is not innocent here, has played a very substantial role in getting things to this point, and the BLM could have done this many years ago.  From that perspective, the BLM effectively gave Mr. Bundy a lot more time to get his cattle in good order than he was given by the courts.

I agree.
My response was simply directed to the question posed "why didn't the militias show up before now".

I'll tell you what really bothers me about this whole affair...I consider myself to be a person who believes in the rule of law, even if I don't agree with the law. I don't believe in civil disobedience or violent demonstrations.

And yet, I feel good that the feds chose to back down, for now.  I'm very ashamed and disappointed in my government right now and feel it has lost total credibility in all respects.

If Barack Hussein Obama should somehow trip up and actually speak the truth about something, I wouldn't believe him and that's how I feel about this case against the Bundys. Our government has zero credibility.

That's sad.

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: evadR on April 13, 2014, 02:26:30 am

It would appear that the appearance of the militia helped get them to back down.  I suppose I'm just a little too risk-averse to want to play chicken with the federal gov't using militias.
True dat.
Funny thing is, up until now, I had never much cared for militias any more than I cared for the black panthers.

I may have to rethink that position.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: evadR on April 13, 2014, 02:29:27 am
If that's what it takes to get this lawless government we have, and I'm speaking broadly here, to back down and rethink what they are doing, then maybe it's a good thing.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 13, 2014, 03:21:36 am
It's a little more nuanced than that.  Mr. Bundy's position is basically that the land in question became the property of the State of Nevada automatically at the instant the State of Nevada sprang into existence.  The theory, which the Supreme Court has already shot down, is that the federal government was only holding the land in trust for future states and that there is a doctrine called the Equal Footing Doctrine under which new states have the same rights and powers as existing states, under which all of the non-private land within a state's borders automatically became the land of that state because when the original 13 states were admitted, the non-private land in each new state belonged to that state not the federal government.  This position has already been addressed in other cases not involving Mr. Bundy and has been shot down.

Nevada State Constitution of 1864 (year Nevada became a State):

The Nevada Constitution says the following:

“That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States."
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 13, 2014, 10:50:27 am
That is a decent question.  At least from the court documents and whatnot it seems that the BLM people were trying to find a way to work things out with Mr. Bundy and put a lot of time into it.

I am inclined to think that the prod that finally got them moving was the impending suit by an environut group over this turtle thing.

But even so, I do not think an armed militia is the proper response to this because Mr. Bundy is not innocent here, has played a very substantial role in getting things to this point, and the BLM could have done this many years ago.  From that perspective, the BLM effectively gave Mr. Bundy a lot more time to get his cattle in good order than he was given by the courts.

Sorry, the armed militia is the EXACT response for these shenanigans.  You can't see the whites of their eyes when their boots on your neck.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: EC on April 13, 2014, 11:13:34 am
Sorry, the armed militia is the EXACT response for these shenanigans.  You can't see the whites of their eyes when their boots on your neck.

You don't need to. That is when you go for the groin.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 13, 2014, 01:50:17 pm
Sorry, the armed militia is the EXACT response for these shenanigans.  You can't see the whites of their eyes when their boots on your neck.

The government's cheerleaders can say what they wish about the excessive show of force to collect, per said cheerleaders, back rent, but I also think the militia made the difference here. 
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 13, 2014, 03:02:03 pm

I am sure that David Koresh would agree with you.

With all due respect, if this had turned violent, at least 50% of the blame for that would lie with these "militias."

It's too bad that the militias won't come out in support of more worthy causes, rather than coming out for a cheat, a trespasser, and a mooch off the taxpayer teat.

Sometimes it requires a scoundrel to get the ball rollling.  It seems the core of the American Right are too busy with concern with their franchise opportunities and strings of poloponies to look up from their smartphones.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 13, 2014, 03:02:51 pm
The government's cheerleaders can say what they wish about the excessive show of force to collect, per said cheerleaders, back rent, but I also think the militia made the difference here.

You guys are making a hero out of the wrong guy here.

This guy appears to be some sort of quasi anarchist who doesn't recognize or accept any law beyond his own wishes.

The land that he's had his cattle grazing on belonged to Mexico until 1848. Ownership of it was transferred to the United States at that time, a full 16 years before there even was a Nevada.

As per the 1864 Constitution of Nevada and every applicable court case since that time, the land remained the property of the United States, as it remains today the property of the United States.

Bundy refuses to recognize the validity of the United States government as well as the validity of his own State's Constitution. He's violated Court orders and has refused to pay grazing fees for 20 years.

Of all the entities that may own that land, he is the one who absolutely has zero claim to ownership of it, yet he insists that the land his his to use as he sees fit, at no cost to himself.

If you wish to uphold anarchy as patriotism that's your right, but remember that anarchy translates into tyranny by the strongest, which eventually leads to the loss of all liberty.

Beware what it is that you support.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 13, 2014, 03:03:19 pm
Sometimes it requires a scoundrel to get the ball rollling.  It seems the core of the American Right are too busy with concern with their franchise opportunities and strings of poloponies to look up from their smartphones.

I wonder where radio gadfly and finger to the winder Limbaugh will come down on this?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 13, 2014, 03:04:37 pm
You guys are making a hero out of the wrong guy here.

This guy appears to be some sort of quasi anarchist who doesn't recognize or accept any law beyond his own wishes.

The land that he's had his cattle grazing on belonged to Mexico until 1848. Ownership of it was transferred to the United States at that time, a full 16 years before there even was a Nevada.

As per the 1864 Constitution of Nevada and every applicable court case since that time, the land remained the property of the United States, as it remains today the property of the United States.

Bundy refuses to recognize the validity of the United States government as well as the validity of his own State's Constitution. He's violated Court orders and has refused to pay grazing fees for 20 years.

Of all the entities that may own that land, he is the one who absolutely has zero claim to ownership of it, yet he insists that the land his his to use as he sees fit, at no cost to himself.

If you wish to uphold anarchy as patriotism that's your right, but remember that anarchy translates into tyranny by the strongest, which eventually leads to the loss of all liberty.

Beware what it is that you support.

I support anarchy over tyranny.  I would at least pretend to think I have rights.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 13, 2014, 03:06:22 pm
I support anarchy over tyranny.  I would at least pretend to think I have rights.

Anarchy IS tyranny.

What protection s the individual afforded in anarchy against a greater force?

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 13, 2014, 03:08:38 pm
I support anarchy over tyranny.  I would at least pretend to think I have rights.

You have no rights in a country were anarchy reigns, or at least you have no one to protect you against the violation of those rights by people with greater strength.

Anarchy is constant strife and rule by he who wields the greatest brute force over the weak.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Fishrrman on April 13, 2014, 03:13:29 pm
Luis wrote above:
[[ You guys are making a hero out of the wrong guy here…]]

In times like these, you take advantage of the "heroes" you have available.

Mr. Bundy certainly is not "pure as the driven snow".

Nevertheless, his -is- an example of today's over-reaching fedgov grinding its boot down on the individual. And with the implications of Harry Reid (and "his guy" in the BLM) behind some of this, "the government" is hardly "the good guy".

You might just as well argue that the colonists who dumped the tea into Boston harbor were lawbreakers (which they were, indeed). Yet in that "lawbreaking" event, the "wrong guy, lawbreaking" persons are today "heroes" in American history.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: andy58-in-nh on April 13, 2014, 03:19:21 pm
Anarchy IS tyranny.

What protection is the individual afforded in anarchy against a greater force?

Anarchy is one form of tyranny, defined by an absence of laws necessary to protect human rights. Totalitarian rule represents the other extreme: the rule of men by means of unnatural laws that deny natural human rights.

Anarchy is not the answer to tyranny. The answer is ordered liberty: a system of constitutionally-limited and representative government based upon the rule of law.

It would be wonderful indeed if we were to return to one, some day.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 13, 2014, 03:28:53 pm
Luis wrote above:
[[ You guys are making a hero out of the wrong guy here…]]

In times like these, you take advantage of the "heroes" you have available.

Mr. Bundy certainly is not "pure as the driven snow".

Nevertheless, his -is- an example of today's over-reaching fedgov grinding its boot down on the individual. And with the implications of Harry Reid (and "his guy" in the BLM) behind some of this, "the government" is hardly "the good guy".

You might just as well argue that the colonists who dumped the tea into Boston harbor were lawbreakers (which they were, indeed). Yet in that "lawbreaking" event, the "wrong guy, lawbreaking" persons are today "heroes" in American history.

The colonists that dumped the Tea into Boston harbor were lawbreakers. But after they won that argument, they set up the system of laws that Bundy refuses to acknowledge has any sovereignty over him or the land that he wants to use for free. They set up the Court system that has found him wrong, and whose mandates he refuses to follow. Yet, I bet you that had those Courts agreed with him, he would be wrapping himself in their findings and demanding that the supremacy of the Courts be respected.

Neither you or I, nor would  any reasonable person for that matter, believe that we have the right to set up a burger joint in the middle of Yosemite National Park without securing the right to do so from the Federal government or paying any form of fees to the same, so where does Bundy get the right to run a business on land that's not his without having to pay anyone for the use of it?

Bundy is no hero, nor is he the moral descendant of the Founders,
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: DCPatriot on April 13, 2014, 03:29:53 pm

I am sure that David Koresh would agree with you.

With all due respect, if this had turned violent, at least 50% of the blame for that would lie with these "militias."

It's too bad that the militias won't come out in support of more worthy causes, rather than coming out for a cheat, a trespasser, and a mooch off the taxpayer teat.


Come on, that's a bit strong, don't you think?

Ever seen "Open Range"?  Great flick!


Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 13, 2014, 03:50:56 pm
You guys are making a hero out of the wrong guy here.

This guy appears to be some sort of quasi anarchist who doesn't recognize or accept any law beyond his own wishes.

The land that he's had his cattle grazing on belonged to Mexico until 1848. Ownership of it was transferred to the United States at that time, a full 16 years before there even was a Nevada.

As per the 1864 Constitution of Nevada and every applicable court case since that time, the land remained the property of the United States, as it remains today the property of the United States.

Bundy refuses to recognize the validity of the United States government as well as the validity of his own State's Constitution. He's violated Court orders and has refused to pay grazing fees for 20 years.

Of all the entities that may own that land, he is the one who absolutely has zero claim to ownership of it, yet he insists that the land his his to use as he sees fit, at no cost to himself.

If you wish to uphold anarchy as patriotism that's your right, but remember that anarchy translates into tyranny by the strongest, which eventually leads to the loss of all liberty.

Beware what it is that you support.

Not in the slightest Luis.   I have rental property, I don't get to call in snipers when the rent is late.  I would have my ass thrown in jail so quick it would make your head spin.  You wish to tolerate this action by our government on it's own citizens?

What I have major issues with is the massive overreach by ALL government agencies these days, this is only one of them.   If "self proclaimed" conservatives support this behavior in our local, state, and federal agencies, this country is already lost.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 13, 2014, 03:56:16 pm
You have no rights in a country were anarchy reigns, or at least you have no one to protect you against the violation of those rights by people with greater strength.

Anarchy is constant strife and rule by he who wields the greatest brute force over the weak.

There is fascist, trust fund tyranny as exemplified by the OWS crowd.  Then there is the other type of anarchy.  The anarchy of the sovereign man.  True libertarianism.  Where there is no government to pick through my garbage or my garments.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 13, 2014, 03:59:40 pm

I am sure that David Koresh would agree with you.

With all due respect, if this had turned violent, at least 50% of the blame for that would lie with these "militias."

It's too bad that the militias won't come out in support of more worthy causes, rather than coming out for a cheat, a trespasser, and a mooch off the taxpayer teat.

Really Loki?

I have always wondered if the situation would have turned out differently if more citizens had arrived on scene.

From what is being reported, the sheriff diffused the situation in Nevada, same thing could have happened in Waco if the feds would have included local LE.  But no, that wasn't the case, the feds had to show how tough they were.

If you wish to support saving the children by killing them, go right ahead.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 13, 2014, 04:05:54 pm

I am sure that David Koresh would agree with you.

With all due respect, if this had turned violent, at least 50% of the blame for that would lie with these "militias."

It's too bad that the militias won't come out in support of more worthy causes, rather than coming out for a cheat, a trespasser, and a mooch off the taxpayer teat.

You have to wonder why they don't "Koresh" some of this little muslim hamlets.  You know, the folks who actually cause trouble and stir up misery.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: andy58-in-nh on April 13, 2014, 04:23:45 pm
There is fascist, trust fund tyranny as exemplified by the OWS crowd.  Then there is the other type of anarchy.  The anarchy of the sovereign man.  True libertarianism.  Where there is no government to pick through my garbage or my garments.

Libertarianism is not anarchy. It is a philosophy of limited government, not one of no government.

Government has a purpose in a free society: to protect and enforce contracts, to secure individual rights against force and fraud, to adjudicate legal disputes, to secure the borders, to maintain public facilities and accommodations, and yes, to levy taxes to support its legitimate purposes.

Progressive statists have lately been using the straw man of "anarchy" as a means of attacking libertarian and Tea Party citizens, pretending in essence that the only alternative to a massive government powerful enough to read your emails and dig through your trash is a condition of total anarchy. They are lying, as always.

Those of us who want to be left alone to live our lives do not expect nor demand the imposition of anarchy, but rather a return to ordered Constitutional liberty as envisioned by America's Founders.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 13, 2014, 04:26:00 pm
Libertarianism is not anarchy. It is a philosophy of limited government, not one of no government.

Government has a purpose in a free society: to protect and enforce contracts, to secure individual rights against force and fraud, to adjudicate legal disputes, to secure the borders, to maintain public facilities and accommodations, and yes, to levy taxes to support its legitimate purposes.

Progressive statists have lately been using the straw man of "anarchy" as a means of attacking libertarian and Tea Party citizens, pretending in essence that the only alternative to a massive government powerful enough to read your emails and dig through your trash is a condition of total anarchy. They are lying, as always.

Those of us who want to be left alone to live our lives do not expect nor demand the imposition of anarchy, but rather a return to ordered Constitutional liberty as envisioned by America's Founders.

 :patriot:
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 13, 2014, 04:58:12 pm
Not in the slightest Luis.   I have rental property, I don't get to call in snipers when the rent is late.  I would have my ass thrown in jail so quick it would make your head spin.  You wish to tolerate this action by our government on it's own citizens?

What I have major issues with is the massive overreach by ALL government agencies these days, this is only one of them.   If "self proclaimed" conservatives support this behavior in our local, state, and federal agencies, this country is already lost.

If they stay there twenty years, in violation of court orders to vacate your property, and they threaten violence if anyone ties to remove them, people with guns and protective gear, overwhelming force, will be called, by you, to have them removed.

The government gave Bundy twenty years to abide by the Court rulings. If the same government takes twenty years to remove renters from your property after a Court orders them out, you'd be attacking the government for not doing its job.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 13, 2014, 04:59:00 pm
Libertarianism is not anarchy. It is a philosophy of limited government, not one of no government.

Government has a purpose in a free society: to protect and enforce contracts, to secure individual rights against force and fraud, to adjudicate legal disputes, to secure the borders, to maintain public facilities and accommodations, and yes, to levy taxes to support its legitimate purposes.

Progressive statists have lately been using the straw man of "anarchy" as a means of attacking libertarian and Tea Party citizens, pretending in essence that the only alternative to a massive government powerful enough to read your emails and dig through your trash is a condition of total anarchy. They are lying, as always.

Those of us who want to be left alone to live our lives do not expect nor demand the imposition of anarchy, but rather a return to ordered Constitutional liberty as envisioned by America's Founders.

Hear, hear.

Libertarianism is anarchy to authoritarians and statists.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 13, 2014, 05:14:41 pm
Libertarianism is not anarchy. It is a philosophy of limited government, not one of no government.

Government has a purpose in a free society: to protect and enforce contracts, to secure individual rights against force and fraud, to adjudicate legal disputes, to secure the borders, to maintain public facilities and accommodations, and yes, to levy taxes to support its legitimate purposes.

Progressive statists have lately been using the straw man of "anarchy" as a means of attacking libertarian and Tea Party citizens, pretending in essence that the only alternative to a massive government powerful enough to read your emails and dig through your trash is a condition of total anarchy. They are lying, as always.

Those of us who want to be left alone to live our lives do not expect nor demand the imposition of anarchy, but rather a return to ordered Constitutional liberty as envisioned by America's Founders.

Who sets the limits?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 13, 2014, 05:21:46 pm
Who sets the limits?

The people via their State and Federal Constitutions, neither of which Bundy recognizes as legitimate.

 
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 13, 2014, 06:13:18 pm
The people via their State and Federal Constitutions, neither of which Bundy recognizes as legitimate.

 
His group of supporters must be impressed by the cowboy hat and tough talk, because it can't be for his demonstrated respect for our system of laws, through elected representatives.

Thousands of other ranchers pay their fees, under exactly the same system. What makes him special?

BTW Sharron Angle's husband was a BLM employee.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: EC on April 13, 2014, 06:50:53 pm

I do apologize for the colorful language.  But the fact remains that he is a trespasser on someone else's property.  He knows that and he has openly admitted that he's a trespasser.  That makes him a lawbreaker.

I would like to put forward a rather blunt analogy:  Mr. Bundy is an illegal immigrant.  On the Bunkerville Allotment he overstayed his visa.  On the Gold Butte areas he simply took his cattle across the border without anyone's permission.  I'm not entirely sure why Mr. Bundy is a hero and all the rest devils.

Technically, you are an illegal immigrant.  :whistle:

Which Native tribe granted your ancestors land and permission to stay?

You knew I had to go there - the God of Mischief should expect it!
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 13, 2014, 07:04:14 pm
If they stay there twenty years, in violation of court orders to vacate your property, and they threaten violence if anyone ties to remove them, people with guns and protective gear, overwhelming force, will be called, by you, to have them removed.

The government gave Bundy twenty years to abide by the Court rulings. If the same government takes twenty years to remove renters from your property after a Court orders them out, you'd be attacking the government for not doing its job.

Something that continues to me misstated, I don't know whether intentional or not, but the Bundys were not and are not living on government (OUR) land.  The gubmint grass in question is next door.

You do understand what a sniper does right?  The scope on that rifle is not there to count turtles. 
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 13, 2014, 07:38:09 pm
Something that continues to me misstated, I don't know whether intentional or not, but the Bundys were not and are not living on government (OUR) land.  The gubmint grass in question is next door.

You do understand what a sniper does right?  The scope on that rifle is not there to count turtles.

No one is saying that the Bundys are living on government land. Their cattle is grazing on government land.

No one is trying to take Bundy's home or his property. They are removing his cattle from government land because he hasn't paid his grazing fees since 1993.

The fact that he has (in the past) paid grazing fees should make it very clear, to even the most obstinate soul, that Bundy was using someone else's lad, since you don't have to pay grazing fees for your cattle to graze on your own property.

The snipers were there because Bundy has frequently threatened to use violence against anyone who tried to enforce the court orders.

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: DCPatriot on April 13, 2014, 08:32:32 pm
Okay!  Okay!  "Uncle" already!


Was just thinking that this may have been a teachable moment as to why our military and our U.S. bases don't allow soldiers to carry loaded weapons.

Even my son carried an empty rifle while on guard duty in Germany.

THAT'S why nobody got hurt.  Militia were steadfast in not shooting first.  Thank God none of them were like Boyd Crowder.

Imagine IF the rancher's supporters DID fire on the government...and it was discovered that they carried unloaded weapons?  Interesting...
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: ABX on April 13, 2014, 08:58:35 pm
Here are the Dry Lake Solar documents that used to be on the BLM website up until a day or so ago. Copies of court orders also included.

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ke3ap5qfw101r71/5YXGPwqndA

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/th7etvwuuk815o0/IPvUa6xBit
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: andy58-in-nh on April 13, 2014, 09:04:28 pm
Who sets the limits?

Ultimately: the laws of God or Nature; take your pick. But people have a right to establish their own government, elect their own representatives, and to enact the rules by which such government must serve the people.  Our Constitution was designed for those purposes. It also includes the right to alter or abolish any government that exceeds its authority, especially when it violates inalienable human rights.   
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 13, 2014, 09:08:42 pm
No one is saying that the Bundys are living on government land. Their cattle is grazing on government land.

No one is trying to take Bundy's home or his property. They are removing his cattle from government land because he hasn't paid his grazing fees since 1993.

The fact that he has (in the past) paid grazing fees should make it very clear, to even the most obstinate soul, that Bundy was using someone else's lad, since you don't have to pay grazing fees for your cattle to graze on your own property.

The snipers were there because Bundy has frequently threatened to use violence against anyone who tried to enforce the court orders.

Quite a few have blurred the lines on this.  And confiscating his cattle IS seizing his property. 

The snipers were there to prove who was in charge, who is the master and who is the peon.

I give up, you want that kind of government, fine.  Don't call me when they come for you and yours.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 13, 2014, 09:16:32 pm
Ultimately: the laws of God or Nature; take your pick. But people have a right to establish their own government, elect their own representatives, and to enact the rules by which such government must serve the people.  Our Constitution was designed for those purposes. It also includes the right to alter or abolish any government that exceeds its authority, especially when it violates inalienable human rights.

That would be correct.  How many people in the past 244 years have accused the government as illegitimate?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: musiclady on April 13, 2014, 09:23:38 pm
Not in the least.  I was born here.  Ius Soli.  Same reason some people dislike "anchor babies."  My great-greats (at least) were the anchors, however.

That's funny.

From your avatar, I thought you were a Norse god....   :smokin:
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: oldno7 on April 13, 2014, 09:54:00 pm
 I don't post here much, so I'll make it quick.

Is everyone here accepting of laws written by "lawmakers", for good or bad?(ie-we accept them)

Who writes laws enforced by the blm?

I'm done, see that was easy.

Better throw in a quote before I run..

"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: katzenjammer on April 13, 2014, 10:21:34 pm
I don't post here much, so I'll make it quick.

Is everyone here accepting of laws written by "lawmakers", for good or bad?(ie-we accept them)

Who writes laws enforced by the blm?

I'm done, see that was easy.

Better throw in a quote before I run..

"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Good quote, you should post more often! 

One of the main problems that we have is that these (extra Constitutional for the most part) federal agencies write their own "regulations" which have the effect of "laws" actually written by the lawmakers that are supposed to have this authority (i.e., Congress and/or state legislatures).  Not only do these unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats write their own laws, but they have their own (armed to the teeth) enforcement divisions, and their own courts.  (And BTW, in these administrative law "courts," the citizen is not presumed innocent with the state required to make a case for guilt; it is basically the opposite, the citizen is presumed to be "guilty" with the burden of "proving" her/his innocence (and quite often being bankrupted in the process).)

This is one of the main ways that we have all been "criminalized" (referring to your Atlas Shrugged quote) and until it stops, the tyranny will just continue to harden day after day, as it has for decades.  Some will continue to cheer it on by taking the side of the tyrannical gubmint whenever possible, and others will fight it at every opportunity that presents itself.

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: oldno7 on April 13, 2014, 10:31:37 pm
 Very well stated.

These were the points I wanted to bring up.

There is a lot more to this than a rancher refusing to pay a lease.


Here is a blm document showing the approved "renewable energy projects"

Of course one would take water from the muddy river, which empties into the Virgin river--you guessed it, just across from the land Cliven Bundy runs cattle.

This isn't made up info--these are facts.

All of the other renewable projects, flew through their EIS's,

ALL under the obama administration.

So it's clear--they get to choose where and how many turtles they can kill.

This has never been about cattle or turtles, it is clear.

www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewab...ewable_projects.html
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: aligncare on April 13, 2014, 11:34:42 pm

"There's no way to rule innocent men.
The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals.
Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them.
One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

I spent this weekend learning to navigate the new and old laws (now seriously being enforced) in healthcare.

HIPAA - Health Care Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, (established medical privacy laws). This is the legislation that put us on the road to nationalized medicine. We are currently seeing stepped up enforcement of HIPAA .

ACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care) public law 111-148. Establishes provider screening and compliance programs.

Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report (June 2005) : The OIG determined that [significant numbers] of claims are in error or fraudulent.

DHHS AND DOJ ISSUE WARNING ON POTENTIAL EHR (Electronic Health Records) MISUSE  (Thursday, Oct 4, 2012)

-------------------

So, many doctors who are innocently unaware that a certain percentage of their customary practices are now illegal could find themselves getting a visit from the FBI, with jail time and fines in the millions of dollars simply for running afoul new regulations related to patient privacy and billing or for not being in "compliance" with HIPAA or Obamacare.

How does any of this help doctors get sick people well?


Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 14, 2014, 01:37:05 am
Very well stated.

These were the points I wanted to bring up.

There is a lot more to this than a rancher refusing to pay a lease.


Here is a blm document showing the approved "renewable energy projects"

Of course one would take water from the muddy river, which empties into the Virgin river--you guessed it, just across from the land Cliven Bundy runs cattle.

This isn't made up info--these are facts.

All of the other renewable projects, flew through their EIS's,

ALL under the obama administration.

So it's clear--they get to choose where and how many turtles they can kill.

This has never been about cattle or turtles, it is clear.

www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/energy/renewab...ewable_projects.html


(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Vx9EIsggqlY/U0lkfsT27JI/AAAAAAAAoBk/MDZnSkufs5M/s1600/Bk-nqfUIIAArsS9.jpg)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 14, 2014, 01:38:23 am
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-L1Uzn7SdkR4/U0llEctrhHI/AAAAAAAAoBs/VBUCGVe2uMc/s1600/BlBLbuGCIAAuE8l.jpg)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: ABX on April 14, 2014, 02:32:27 am
Quote
Why Cliven Bundy Is Not Wrong- From A Fellow Rancher

There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow – - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.

-Kena Lytle Gloeckner

http://www.libertyandlead.com/2014/04/13/why-cliven-bundy-is-not-wrong-from-a-fellow-rancher/

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 14, 2014, 03:20:54 am



Kena fails to mention one tiny little point:  A big chunk of the land Mr. Bundy is trespassing on is land that he never had a grazing permit for in the first place.  That makes everything else ring hollow.

This is actually sad.

There is such built up animus for the government, so much distrust and such pent up frustration that people are willing to believe any story that paints the government in a bad light, even when the facts do not support the memes. As the news circulate through the blogosphere, the story begins to take a life of its own, and suddenly we have protected turtles, Harry Reid and the Chinese and facts no longer matter.

I think that reason stops at a certain point, and people don't care whether Bundy is right or wrong. They just want to fight the government.

It's dangerous times that we live in.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SPQR on April 14, 2014, 07:57:05 am
Just leave this guy in peace. The government is getting a little petty in fighting a rancher.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 14, 2014, 08:35:43 am

I agree.  It's a shame also because all of that energy could be spent in so many more productive ways.  And it also ends up doing long-term damage because this will be portrayed to the undecided as just another reason to avoid the conservative "kooks" in November.

I respectfully disagree.  This may be exactly what's necessary to cut the dead wood from the legislatures.  People have long memories after situations like this.  It hangs with you like bile.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 14, 2014, 12:52:21 pm
I respectfully disagree.  This may be exactly what's necessary to cut the dead wood from the legislatures.  People have long memories after situations like this.  It hangs with you like bile.

You're going to cut "dead wood from the legislatures" based on the behavior of an individual who doesn't recognize the supremacy of either his State's or his nation's Constitution, who will not abide by laws and Court mandates that have been in effect for decades and who claims title to territories whose ownership has been settled for 166 years?

The Constitution of Nevada states that:

Quote
ORDINANCE

      Slavery prohibited; freedom of religious worship; disclaimer of public lands. [Effective until the date Congress consents to amendment or a legal determination is made that such consent is not necessary.]In obedience to the requirements of an act of the Congress of the United States, approved March twenty-first, A.D. eighteen hundred and sixty-four, to enable the people of Nevada to form a constitution and state government, this convention, elected and convened in obedience to said enabling act, do ordain as follows, and this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Nevada:
      First. That there shall be in this state neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment for crimes, whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
      Second. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested, in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship.
      Third. That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States

Bundy refuses to recognize that as law.

Article IV, Section 3 of he Constitution of the United States says that:

Quote
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States;

Bundy refuses to recognize the power of the Federal government over the land that the Federal government owns.

So when you do cut all that dead wood, and you do set new laws in place and when that next individual comes along and decides that he doesn't want to abide by your new laws and that he will not respect either Constitutions or Court mandates, what will you do?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: evadR on April 14, 2014, 12:56:00 pm
This is actually sad.

There is such built up animus for the government, so much distrust and such pent up frustration that people are willing to believe any story that paints the government in a bad light, even when the facts do not support the memes. As the news circulate through the blogosphere, the story begins to take a life of its own, and suddenly we have protected turtles, Harry Reid and the Chinese and facts no longer matter.

I think that reason stops at a certain point, and people don't care whether Bundy is right or wrong. They just want to fight the government.


It's dangerous times that we live in.
So true.
It defines my feelings pretty well with the exception that I don't want to fight my government, I just want it to return to a government of the people, by the people and for the people.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 14, 2014, 01:07:28 pm
You're going to cut "dead wood from the legislatures" based on the behavior of an individual who doesn't recognize the supremacy of either his State's or his nation's Constitution, who will not abide by laws and Court mandates that have been in effect for decades and who claims title to territories whose ownership has been settled for 166 years?

The Constitution of Nevada states that:

Bundy refuses to recognize that as law.

Article IV, Section 3 of he Constitution of the United States says that:

Bundy refuses to recognize the power of the Federal government over the land that the Federal government owns.

So when you do cut all that dead wood, and you do set new laws in place and when that next individual comes along and decides that he doesn't want to abide by your new laws and that he will not respect either Constitutions or Court mandates, what will you do?

I don't mean this man or his situation specifically.  It's like an ear worm.  It reminds them of their trouble at DMV, a snotty receptionist at the town hall or their cousin Edwin's audit.  It's like a hemorrhoidal flare up.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: oldno7 on April 14, 2014, 01:13:30 pm
 What is actually sad is that an agency of un elected officials can write laws willy nilly AND  courts  uphold said laws!

Believing this agency(blm) does this for the benefit of We The People, is naive.

Knowing who the blm answers to is paramount.

blm---Dept of Interior--Secretary of the interior(Presidents Cabinet)--President

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

We all know that no administration would use any agency to their political advantage....


Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: oldno7 on April 14, 2014, 01:43:23 pm
 On a related subject---

Who would ever think that Taxation Without Representation, might cause a war??
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 14, 2014, 01:44:36 pm
What is actually sad is that an agency of un elected officials can write laws willy nilly AND  courts  uphold said laws!

Believing this agency(blm) does this for the benefit of We The People, is naive.

Knowing who the blm answers to is paramount.

blm---Dept of Interior--Secretary of the interior(Presidents Cabinet)--President

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

We all know that no administration would use any agency to their political advantage....

The BLM reminds me of the EPA.  What is the difference?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: EC on April 14, 2014, 01:49:26 pm
The BLM reminds me of the EPA.  What is the difference?

The BLM originally had a decent purpose.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 14, 2014, 01:53:15 pm
The BLM reminds me of the EPA.  What is the difference?

The difference is Article IV, Section 3 of he Constitution of the United States.

I've said that we need a new Constitution, but everyone disagrees.

We need a new Constitution correcting all the loopholes and firmly restricting the powers of the Executive. We need to set irrevocable term limits in place for every position in the Federal government, and we need to make  the action of even trying to change that BY ANYONE IN ANY BRANCH OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (Courts included) reason for immediate impeachment if not treason.

That's just a start.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Fishrrman on April 15, 2014, 01:20:57 am
evadR2 wrote above:
[[ It defines my feelings pretty well with the exception that I don't want to fight my government, I just want it to return to a government of the people, by the people and for the people. ]]

The conondrum is that we will never have that "return to a government of the people, by the people and for the people" until the people are willing to engage in an open "fight" with that government.

It's not going to happen otherwise.

I sense that there are many here on this forum who share this sentiment.

How many tyrannies have voluntarily relinquished power?

A quote for you, courtesy of George Orwell:
 “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
(from "1984")
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 04:04:30 am
evadR2 wrote above:
[[ It defines my feelings pretty well with the exception that I don't want to fight my government, I just want it to return to a government of the people, by the people and for the people. ]]

The conondrum is that we will never have that "return to a government of the people, by the people and for the people" until the people are willing to engage in an open "fight" with that government.

It's not going to happen otherwise.

I sense that there are many here on this forum who share this sentiment.

How many tyrannies have voluntarily relinquished power?

A quote for you, courtesy of George Orwell:
 “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
(from "1984")

Let's say that we do that.

Let's say that we spill the blood, burn the cities, raze the fields and do all that it will take to fight that open fight.

Let's say that we win, and that we set things right.

That we set the Constitution in place, and that we set our institutions rights. The Courts, Congress, everything.

Then we get a man who will not abide by established laws (Both the Constitutions of the State of Nevada and the US Constitution clearly establish who the pieces of land in question belong to) will not recognize treaties made by the United States under its Constitutional powers set in place via Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of said Constitution  (Treaty of Hidalgo) will not recognize the Supremacy of his own State's Constitution when it clearly states who the land belongs to (Nevada Constitution of 1864), and who has the constitutional authority to manage them (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 U.S. Constitution), and that when that man takes his dispute to the Courts, the Courts find that he is wrong, and that he must abide by the laws and institutions that we shed blood to set in place, yet this man ignores every legal order issued by the Courts, refuses to abide by all authority, and threatens to do violence to anyone who tries to execute the Court orders.

Would you let that stand?

What good would your Constitution be then? 

Bundy is wrong.

He is dead wrong.

The Founders themselves put down Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion because they understood that once founded, the nation could not survive rebellions stemming from anti-government sentiment justified or not justified.

If you all really want to get behind someone, look up E. Wayne Hage and show his family some support.

Not this Bundy guy.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: pjohns on April 15, 2014, 06:10:27 am
I would imagine that the feds simply did not want another Waco or Ruby Ridge, to serve as a rallying cry against a heavy-handed government; so they simply backed off (and backed down)...
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 15, 2014, 09:45:23 am
I would imagine that the feds simply did not want another Waco or Ruby Ridge, to serve as a rallying cry against a heavy-handed government; so they simply backed off (and backed down)...

Backed off?  More likely realized there are many ways to cook a chicken.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 12:28:08 pm
I would imagine that the feds simply did not want another Waco or Ruby Ridge, to serve as a rallying cry against a heavy-handed government; so they simply backed off (and backed down)...

Being in violation of two separate Court orders, Cliven Bundy may be about to find himself in jail.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Oceander on April 15, 2014, 12:31:03 pm
On a related subject---

Who would ever think that Taxation Without Representation, might cause a war??

Cliven Bundy has had more than his fair share of representation and more than his fair share of due process.  If you wish to analogize to the American Revolution, then Cliven Bundy is firmly in the British camp, not the American camp.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Oceander on April 15, 2014, 12:36:47 pm
Let's say that we do that.

Let's say that we spill the blood, burn the cities, raze the fields and do all that it will take to fight that open fight.

Let's say that we win, and that we set things right.

That we set the Constitution in place, and that we set our institutions rights. The Courts, Congress, everything.

Then we get a man who will not abide by established laws (Both the Constitutions of the State of Nevada and the US Constitution clearly establish who the pieces of land in question belong to) will not recognize treaties made by the United States under its Constitutional powers set in place via Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of said Constitution  (Treaty of Hidalgo) will not recognize the Supremacy of his own State's Constitution when it clearly states who the land belongs to (Nevada Constitution of 1864), and who has the constitutional authority to manage them (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 U.S. Constitution), and that when that man takes his dispute to the Courts, the Courts find that he is wrong, and that he must abide by the laws and institutions that we shed blood to set in place, yet this man ignores every legal order issued by the Courts, refuses to abide by all authority, and threatens to do violence to anyone who tries to execute the Court orders.

Would you let that stand?

What good would your Constitution be then? 

Bundy is wrong.

He is dead wrong.

The Founders themselves put down Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion because they understood that once founded, the nation could not survive rebellions stemming from anti-government sentiment justified or not justified.

If you all really want to get behind someone, look up E. Wayne Hage and show his family some support.

Not this Bundy guy.


Shay's Rebellion is actually a very apt analogy
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 01:51:22 pm

Shay's Rebellion is actually a very apt analogy

The US Constitution was born, to a great degree, as a result Shay's Rebellion.

The framers realized that the Articles of Confederation lacked "teeth" and that a better structure was needed to maintain order and stabilize the nation, so in effect, the framers reacted to Shay's Rebellion by creating force vis à vis the ability to react to internal strife. That force created by the Founders as a reaction to a rebellion by farmers angry at government taxation, is the Federal government.

So, what would the Framers do if they faced the Bundy Rebellion?

Convinced that the United States was "last verging to anarchy and confusion" a retired George Washington thundered "are your people... mad?" when receiving news via courier of the uprising in Massachusetts.

Washington then began corresponding with members of the nation's government urging them to address the rebellion and stop the rebels from closing Courts, defying the State militia, and threatening to revamp the State governments 

The rebels were defeated and Daniel Shays was tried in absentia (he fled) and sentenced to death for the crime of treason against the United States. He applied for amnesty and received a pardon.

He died drunk and broke in a Baltimore gutter.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 15, 2014, 02:08:38 pm
Cliven Bundy has had more than his fair share of representation and more than his fair share of due process.  If you wish to analogize to the American Revolution, then Cliven Bundy is firmly in the British camp, not the American camp.

You don't leave fish to find fish.  This isn't a perfect situation but it is a point to rally.  Based upon OVERALL reaction against the feds, it's a start and a good one at that.  The fuse doesn't go in search of the match!
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: DCPatriot on April 15, 2014, 02:10:55 pm
You don't leave fish to find fish.  This isn't a perfect situation but it is a point to rally.  Based upon OVERALL reaction against the feds, it's a start and a good one at that.  The fuse doesn't go in search of the match!

 :beer:
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Oceander on April 15, 2014, 02:13:02 pm
You don't leave fish to find fish.  This isn't a perfect situation but it is a point to rally.  Based upon OVERALL reaction against the feds, it's a start and a good one at that.  The fuse doesn't go in search of the match!

as luis has pointed out, geo. washington would disagree with you.  shay's rebellion led to greater centralization and empowerment of the federal government; Bundy's rebellion - if that is what it comes to - will do the same.  That's a pretty stupid price to pay for defending a scofflaw.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: DCPatriot on April 15, 2014, 02:20:08 pm

That's a pretty stupid price to pay for defending a scofflaw.


You misspelled "turtle".



Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 15, 2014, 02:48:09 pm
as luis has pointed out, geo. washington would disagree with you.  shay's rebellion led to greater centralization and empowerment of the federal government; Bundy's rebellion - if that is what it comes to - will do the same.  That's a pretty stupid price to pay for defending a scofflaw.

I'm not so sure centralization will be a consequence in this case.  It may be the perfect point for states to take some power back.  Who is better suited to react, respond and plan to conditions on the ground, a state agency or some agency suit in Washington?
This is like stopping Common Core or closing national monuments during the sequester.  People want their local lives back.  If played wisely, it can be a boon.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 02:56:20 pm
You misspelled "turtle".

Bundy's grazing permit was modified in 1993 in order to protect the turtle's habitat. Bundy refused to pay the fees for the modified permits and in turn his permit was cancelled. Bundy refuses to recognize the Federal government's authority over the land in question.

The turtle conservancy closed down sometime back due to lack of funds.

Bundy continued grazing cattle in the land for 20 years without paying any grazing fees.

Here is Cliven Bundy's description of what the conflict is all about, in his own words, from the Glenn Beck show:

Quote
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/04/14/nevada-rancher-i-did-not-graze-my-cattle-on-united-states-property/

This morning on radio, Glenn spoke with Bundy about the escalating conflict and why Bundy has refused to pay grazing fees associated with his use of the public land.

“The story of Cliven Bundy, and his ranch in Nevada, is one that I think is captivating many Americans. And it may indeed go down in American history as  more than just a quick footnote. I hope that it would go down in history as a positive footnote. But it is one of those situations where we could face another Waco or another really bad situation, a Ruby Ridge,” Glenn said.

During the interview, Glenn tried to understand Bundy’s perspective on the dispute. Was this conflict over ranching and grazing fees? Or was it over an issue of state sovereignty or disarming the BLM?

Glenn said, “I have people that graze on my land. And there is national land behind my ranch as well. And I know if anybody runs cattle on that, they also have to pay for grazing fees. Grazing fees are normal. And you stopped paying them. Your daughter said you did pay them for a while and then you stopped paying them. There are some people that would say that you are, if I may quote, a ‘welfare rancher’ because you’re not paying the fees that other ranchers do have to pay.”

“Let’s make sure we get this straight. I would pay my grazing fees to the proper government and I did try to pay my grazing fees to the proper government. I do not have a contract with the United States because I will not sign that contract with the United States,” Bundy explained. “I have no contract. I did not graze my cattle on the United States property. And I would pay my grazing fees to the proper government.”

Glenn asked him to clarify since in the Nevada State Constitution that land Bundy’s cattle are grazing on was given over to the federal government.

Below is a transcript of Bundy’s explanation:

CLIVEN: Let’s talk about the — Glenn, I really want to talk about that because that’s very important.  You’re talking about the Enabling Act of the people of the territory of the state of Nevada.  And remember, in the — section of the Constitution, we’re talking about territories of Nevada.  Let me see if I can get that straight.  What it says, it says the United States Congress will have power to dispose of all rules and regulations within the territory.  Now, let’s think what we’re doing.  We’re talking about the territory of Nevada.  People of the territory of Nevada.  As they — they do not have the Constitution.  They’re within the territory and Congress had an unlimited power to make all the rules and regulations.  Okay.  The people of the territory petitioned the United States Congress to make this a state.  And they have a clouded title.  So in order to clear their title, they give up their public domain — forever.  It sounds terrible.  Forever?  But let me tell what you they had to do.  They had to give it up forever so Congress would have a clear title.
And what did Congress do?  It made a state of Nevada.  Which [indiscernible] a lot of them — quote Ed Presley here.  Here’s what Ed Presley said.  It doesn’t matter what happened before statehood.  What matters is what has happened at the moment of statehood.  Now, if you think about that in the second.  At the moment of statehood.  What happened?  At the moment of statehood the people of the territory become people of the United States with the Constitution with equal footing to the original 13 states.  They had boundaries around them, a state line.  And that boundary was divided into 17 subdivisions, which were county. I live in one of those counties: Clark County, Nevada.  And in that county, Clark County, Nevada, we elect our county commissioners, which is the closest to we the peoplend we elect the county sheriff and we pay him to do what? Protect our life, liberty and property.
I’m a citizen of that county. I abide by all the state laws.
Essentially, Bundy is saying this conflict isn’t inherently about grazing fees or water rights, but that he ultimately does not recognize the lands to be federal and the United States government or the BLM do not have jurisdiction on the land.

In effect, he refuses to abide by the Supreme Law of the land, the US Constitution, and he refuses to recognize his own State's Constitution which clearly states that the land in question belongs to the United States.

The man believes in nothing but his own law, and follows whichever law suits his purposes best.

Bundy's own worlds:

It doesn't matter what happened before statehood.  What matters is what has happened at the moment of statehood.

At the moment of statehood, the Constitution of Nevada said:

Quote
That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States.

so Bundy refuses to abide by ANY Constitution that he doesn't agree with.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Oceander on April 15, 2014, 03:00:52 pm
I'm not so sure centralization will be a consequence in this case.  It may be the perfect point for states to take some power back.  Who is better suited to react, respond and plan to conditions on the ground, a state agency or some agency suit in Washington?
This is like stopping Common Core or closing national monuments during the sequester.  People want their local lives back.  If played wisely, it can be a boon.

On federal land?  State law enforcement has only as much jurisdiction on federal land as the federal government allows them to have.  As far as that is concerned there is nothing for the states to take back because the Constitution expressly gives the federal government paramount jurisdiction over federally-owned land.

If people want their local lives back then they ought not live them on federal lands.  If I don't like the rules my landlord puts in my lease I have two choices:  (a) find a new place to rent, or (b) buy my own place.  I do not - unless I'm Cliven Bundy - have the right to call out thousands of armed vigilantes to make my landlord back down so I can continue living in his house rent-free and without any regard for his rules.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 03:05:19 pm
I'm not so sure centralization will be a consequence in this case.  It may be the perfect point for states to take some power back.  Who is better suited to react, respond and plan to conditions on the ground, a state agency or some agency suit in Washington?
This is like stopping Common Core or closing national monuments during the sequester.  People want their local lives back.  If played wisely, it can be a boon.

Take what power back?

Quote
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 U.S. Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

The State of Nevada never had power over the land in question.

Are you suggesting that we should overthrow the Constitution of the United States?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: SouthTexas on April 15, 2014, 03:13:56 pm
Here is a very good summary/opinion of of the Bundy issue.  I am only posting a partial, suggest you follow the link and read all of it.

Why You Should Be Sympathetic Toward Cliven Bundy

On Saturday, I wrote about the standoff at Bundy Ranch. That post drew a remarkable amount of traffic, even though, as I wrote then, I had not quite decided what to make of the story. Since then, I have continued to study the facts and have drawn some conclusions. Here they are.

First, it must be admitted that legally, Bundy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. The Bureau of Land Management has been charging him grazing fees since the early 1990s, which he has refused to pay. Further, BLM has issued orders limiting the area on which Bundy’s cows can graze and the number that can graze, and Bundy has ignored those directives. As a result, BLM has sued Bundy twice in federal court, and won both cases. In the second, more recent action, Bundy’s defense is that the federal government doesn’t own the land in question and therefore has no authority to regulate grazing. That simply isn’t right; the land, like most of Nevada, is federally owned. Bundy is representing himself, of necessity: no lawyer could make that argument.

That being the case, why does Bundy deserve our sympathy? To begin with, his family has been ranching on the acres at issue since the late 19th century. They and other settlers were induced to come to Nevada in part by the federal government’s promise that they would be able to graze their cattle on adjacent government-owned land. For many years they did so, with no limitations or fees. The Bundy family was ranching in southern Nevada long before the BLM came into existence.......

Based on the evidence, I would say: yes, that is probably the difference. When the desert tortoises balance out, Occam’s razor tells us that the distinction is political.

So let’s have some sympathy for Cliven Bundy and his family. They don’t have a chance on the law, because under the Endangered Species Act and many other federal statutes, the agencies are always in the right. And their way of life is one that, frankly, is on the outs. They don’t develop apps. They don’t ask for food stamps. It probably has never occurred to them to bribe a politician. They don’t subsist by virtue of government subsidies or regulations that hamstring competitors. They aren’t illegal immigrants. They have never even gone to law school. So what possible place is there for the Bundys in the Age of Obama?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/04/why-you-should-be-sympathetic-toward-cliven-bundy.php#!
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 15, 2014, 03:21:13 pm
JUDGE NAPOLITANO: FEDERAL AGENTS STOLE BUNDY PROPERTY, & SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPusi7TXzH4&feature=player_detailpage
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 03:37:35 pm
JUDGE NAPOLITANO: FEDERAL AGENTS STOLE BUNDY PROPERTY, & SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPusi7TXzH4&feature=player_detailpage

Which makes Napolitano a hypocrite.

As a judge, he would have had Bundy arrested for ignoring his orders.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Fishrrman on April 15, 2014, 04:00:08 pm
Luis wrote above:
[[ If you all really want to get behind someone, look up E. Wayne Hage and show his family some support.
Not this Bundy guy. ]]

Here's something I found posted over at TOS today (link included)
==========
“There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.”
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
(H/T SatinDoll)
==========
source:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3144597/posts?page=20#20

Who would sign an "agreement" that was designed to all-but destroy the signer?
Sounds like Mr. Bundy refused an "offer that you can't refuse".
Only this time pen was being held by the government, not the godfather.
(Aside: is there a difference, these days?)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 04:27:28 pm
Luis wrote above:
[[ If you all really want to get behind someone, look up E. Wayne Hage and show his family some support.
Not this Bundy guy. ]]

Here's something I found posted over at TOS today (link included)
==========
“There have been a lot of people criticizing Clive Bundy because he did not pay his grazing fees for 20 years. The public is also probably wondering why so many other cowboys are supporting Mr. Bundy even though they paid their fees and Clive did not. What you people probably do not realize is that on every rancher’s grazing permit it says the following: “You are authorized to make grazing use of the lands, under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management and covered by this grazing permit, upon your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this grazing permit and payment of grazing fees when due.” The “mandatory” terms and conditions go on to list the allotment, the number and kind of livestock to be grazed, when the permit begins and ends, the number of active or suspended AUMs (animal units per month), etc. The terms and conditions also list specific requirements such as where salt or mineral supplements can be located, maximum allowable use of forage levels (40% of annual growth), etc., and include a lot more stringent policies that must be adhered to. Every rancher must sign this “contract” agreeing to abide by the TERMS AND CONDITIONS before he or she can make payment. In the early 90s, the BLM went on a frenzy and drastically cut almost every rancher’s permit because of this desert tortoise issue, even though all of us ranchers knew that cow and desert tortoise had co-existed for a hundred+ years. As an example, a family friend had his permit cut by 90%. For those of you who are non ranchers, that would be equated to getting your paycheck cut 90%. In 1976 there were approximately 52 ranching permittees in this area of Nevada. Presently, there are 3. Most of these people lost their livelihoods because of the actions of the BLM. Clive Bundy was one of these people who received extremely unfair and unreasonable TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Keep in mind that Mr. Bundy was required to sign this contract before he was allowed to pay. Had Clive signed on the dotted line, he would have, in essence, signed his very livelihood away. And so Mr. Bundy took a stand, not only for himself, but for all of us. He refused to be destroyed by a tyrannical federal entity and to have his American liberties and freedoms taken away. Also keep in mind that all ranchers financially paid dearly for the forage rights those permits allow - - not rights to the land, but rights to use the forage that grows on that land. Many of these AUMS are water based, meaning that the rancher also has a vested right (state owned, not federal) to the waters that adjoin the lands and allow the livestock to drink. These water rights were also purchased at a great price. If a rancher cannot show beneficial use of the water (he must have the appropriate number of livestock that drinks and uses that water), then he loses that water right. Usually water rights and forage rights go hand in hand. Contrary to what the BLM is telling you, they NEVER compensate a rancher for the AUMs they take away. Most times, they tell ranchers that their AUMS are “suspended,” but not removed. Unfortunately, my family has thousands of “suspended” AUMs that will probably never be returned. And so, even though these ranchers throughout the course of a hundred years invested thousands(and perhaps millions) of dollars and sacrificed along the way to obtain these rights through purchase from others, at a whim the government can take everything away with the stroke of a pen. This is the very thing that Clive Bundy single-handedly took a stand against. Thank you, Clive, from a rancher who considers you a hero.”
-Kena Lytle Gloeckner
(H/T SatinDoll)
==========
source:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3144597/posts?page=20#20

Who would sign an "agreement" that was designed to all-but destroy the signer?
Sounds like Mr. Bundy refused an "offer that you can't refuse".
Only this time pen was being held by the government, not the godfather.
(Aside: is there a difference, these days?)

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution of The United States.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;
 
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: musiclady on April 15, 2014, 04:29:38 pm
Which makes Napolitano a hypocrite.

As a judge, he would have had Bundy arrested for ignoring his orders.

With tanks, weapons and thugs??

Surely you jest....
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Fishrrman on April 15, 2014, 04:29:57 pm
Another interesting post about Mr. Bundy's "contract" with the BLM. I have no way to vouch for its veracity. Take it for what it is:
==============
The Feds & the BLM are out of control. They spent over $3 million to harass Bundy & go after $1 million in grazing fees they say he owes. Also- They cut his grazing allotment down to where they were only allowing him 250 cows on 260,000 acres!!! Do the math! That is over 1000 acres PER COW!! It is also not enough cows to run the ranch profitably. That kind of land/cow ratio is nuts!!!
==============
source:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3144592/posts?page=31#31

Again -- why sign an agreement imposed under such duress?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: DCPatriot on April 15, 2014, 04:30:50 pm
Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution of The United States.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;
 

and the wheel goes round and round....... Wish Alan Dershowitz and/or Mark Levin would tell us their respective POVs.

Glenn Beck however, is quite a megaphone to provide the alternative POV regarding Bundy being hero or villain.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 15, 2014, 04:58:18 pm
3. George Washington condemned the Boston Tea Party.
 Although America’s foremost Revolutionary figure wrote in June 1774 that “the cause of Boston…ever will be considered as the cause of America,” he strongly voiced his disapproval of “their conduct in destroying the Tea.” Washington, like many other elites, held private property to be sacrosanct and believed the perpetrators should compensate the East India Company for the damages.

4. It was the British reaction to the Boston Tea Party, not the event itself, that rallied Americans.
 Many Americans shared Washington’s sentiment and viewed the Boston Tea Party as an act of vandalism by radicals rather than a heroic patriotic undertaking. There was less division among the colonists, however, about their opposition to the measures passed by the British government in 1774 to punish Boston. The legislation closed the port of Boston until damages were paid, annulled colonial self-government in Massachusetts and expanded the Quartering Act. Colonists referred to the measures as the “Intolerable Acts,” and they led to the formation of the first Continental Congress.

http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-boston-tea-party (http://www.history.com/news/10-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-boston-tea-party)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 15, 2014, 05:01:12 pm
@ Oceander and Luis

This has moved into the realm of perception.  What is the image of the full weight of the American government, tanks, soldiers, guys with sunglassed and bullet proof vests against a ragtag group of ranchers and cowboys.  Place this against the backdrop of single mothers with obamaphones and obamacare.
Fine, not all the Is are dotted and Ts crossed but this, this is the stand.  Let the parlor pundits discuss fine points over brandy and cigars, hale fellows well met, while the dirty work is to be done.  This man is our Pavel Trofimovich Morozov, captures the imagination of the American West. 
As someone else mentioned, why are other ranchers standing behind this man?  Do they regret signing over their inheritance like Esau?
You go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had.  The only failure in this situation is the lack of other places to start similar situations around the West.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 15, 2014, 05:43:12 pm
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada. - See more at:

 http://www.thedailysheeple.com/who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis_042014#sthash.C3ol9kLA.q5jaxp5b.dpuf
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 05:53:02 pm
and the wheel goes round and round....... Wish Alan Dershowitz and/or Mark Levin would tell us their respective POVs.

Glenn Beck however, is quite a megaphone to provide the alternative POV regarding Bundy being hero or villain.

I'm a pragmatic sort of a guy. I seldom get caught up in the emotional aspect of an issue.

I see that the Constitution clearly gives the United States the power to manage that land as it sees fit, and I see that the ownership of the land is clearly defined.

I see people like Meghan Kelly and even Glenn Beck acknowledging the fact that Bundy doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, and I see that he's had his day(s) in Court and that he's lost there.

Our side of the political spectrum argues that the Constitution should be adhered to, and respected as the Supreme Law of the Land, until we get to a case like this, when we forego all reason and embrace emotions.

We all need to abide by one Constitution and we all need to abide by the decisions of our Courts, because otherwise we will never have a sustainable Constitution.     

So the first step in getting back to that Constitutional Republic we once were and the original intent of the Framers CANNOT BE the complete disregard of the Constitution, because once it becomes accepted practice that disregarding the Constitution is the proper way to protest unpalatable Constitutional actions by the government, disregarding every Constitution will become the norm, and no Constitution will ever be seen as legitimate.     
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 15, 2014, 06:04:22 pm
From my previous link: Historically, the Property Clause delegated federal control over territorial lands up until the point when that land would be formed as a state. This was necessary during the time of the ratification of the Constitution due to the lack of westward development. The clause was drafted to constitutionalize the Northwest Ordinance, which the Articles of Confederation did not have the power to support. This ordinance gave the newly formed Congress the power to create new states instead of allowing the states themselves to expand their own land claims.

The Property Clause and Northwest Ordinance are both limited in power and scope. Once a state is formed and accepted in the union, the federal government no longer has control over land within the state’s borders. From this moment, such land is considered property of the sovereign state. The continental United States is now formed of fifty independent, sovereign states. No “unclaimed” lands are technically in existence. Therefore, the Property Clause no longer applies within the realm of federal control over these states.

The powers of Congress are found only in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. With the exception of the less than two dozen powers delegated to Congress found within Article I, Section 8, Congress may make no laws, cannot form political agencies and cannot take any actions that seek to regulate outside of these few, enumerated powers.

Article I, Section 8 does lay forth the possibility of federal control over some land. What land? Clause 17 defines these few exceptions.

Quote
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings– (Emphasis added). -

Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 is known as the Enclave Clause. The clause gives federal control over the “Seat of Government” (Washington D.C.) and land that has been purchased by the federal government with consent of the state legislature to build military posts and other needful buildings (post offices and other structures pursuant to Article I, Section 8). Nothing more.

Being a requirement, state permission was explicitly emphasized while drafting this clause. The founders and respective states insisted (with loud cries) that the states must consent before the federal government could purchase lands from the states. Nowhere in this clause will you find the power for Congress to exercise legislative authority through regulation over 80% of Nevada, 55% of Utah, 45% of California, 70% of Alaska, etc. unless the state has given the federal government the formal authority to do so, which they have not.

If a state legislature decides sell land to the federal government then at that point the Enclave Clause becomes applicable and the federal government may seize legislative and regulatory control in pursuance to the powers delegated by Article 1, Section 8.

In America’s infancy, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the Founding Fathers’ understanding of federal control over land. Justice Stephen J. Field wrote for the majority opinion in Fort Leavenworth Railroad Co. v. Lowe (1855) that federal authority over territorial land was “necessarily paramount.” However, once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do so under the Enclave Clause with the exception of federal buildings (post offices) and military installations. This understanding was reaffirmed in Lessee of Pollard v. Hagan (1845), Permoli v. Municipality No. 1 of the city of New Orleans (1845) and Strader v. Graham (1850).

However, it did not take long for the Supreme Court to begin redefining the Constitution and legislating from the bench under the guise of interpretation.  Case by case, the Court slowly redefined the Property Clause, which had always been understood to regard exclusively the transferring of federal to state sovereignty through statehood, to the conservation of unconstitutional federal supremacy.

Federal supremacists sitting on the Supreme Court understood that by insidiously redefining this clause then federal power would be expanded and conserved.

With Camfield v. United States (1897), Light v. United States (1911),  Kleppe v. New Mexico (1976) and multiple other cases regarding commerce, federal supremacists have effectively erased the constitutional guarantee of state control over property.

Through the centuries, by the hand of corrupt federal judges, we arrive and the Bundy Ranch in Nevada. The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government. Furthermore, they certainly never imagined the state legislatures themselves would allow such treatment to go unchecked. The latest updates appear to show that Bundy has won his battle against the feds– for now. However, it remains a damn shame that the state of Nevada would allow for such a situation to arise in the first place.

What does Nevada’s Constitution say about property? Section 1, titled “Inalienable Rights,” reads: All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness (Emphasis added).

In Section 22 of the Nevada Constitution, eminent domain is clarified. The state Constitution requires that the state prove public need, provide compensation and documentation before acquiring private property. In order to grant land to the federal government, the state must first control this land.
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis_042014#sthash.C3ol9kLA.ZfTHGjUe.dpuf
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 06:19:08 pm
 
Quote
once the territory was organized as a state and admitted to the union on equal ground, the state government assumes sovereignty over federal lands, and the federal government retains only the rights of an “individual proprietor.” This means that the federal government could only exercise general sovereignty over state property if the state legislature formally granted the federal government the power to do.

Which the Nevada Constitution of 1864 does explicitly and Bundy has (unsuccessfully) argued does not carry weight of law.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: aligncare on April 15, 2014, 06:51:45 pm
I'm a pragmatic sort of a guy. I seldom get caught up in the emotional aspect of an issue.

I see that the Constitution clearly gives the United States the power to manage that land as it sees fit, and I see that the ownership of the land is clearly defined.

I see people like Meghan Kelly and even Glenn Beck acknowledging the fact that Bundy doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, and I see that he's had his day(s) in Court and that he's lost there.

Our side of the political spectrum argues that the Constitution should be adhered to, and respected as the Supreme Law of the Land, until we get to a case like this, when we forego all reason and embrace emotions.

We all need to abide by one Constitution and we all need to abide by the decisions of our Courts, because otherwise we will never have a sustainable Constitution.     

So the first step in getting back to that Constitutional Republic we once were and the original intent of the Framers CANNOT BE the complete disregard of the Constitution, because once it becomes accepted practice that disregarding the Constitution is the proper way to protest unpalatable Constitutional actions by the government, disregarding every Constitution will become the norm, and no Constitution will ever be seen as legitimate.   

Well argued.

There's ample room to question whether this battle is worth it. As a legal loser, whether it risks the cause itself.

Yet, one can't help but root for the lone rancher! That grizzled, iconic figure pitted against the machine of state. I wonder if he signed the movie rights yet?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 15, 2014, 08:55:26 pm
Ya know, these Constitutional and legal arguments are truly flying near the bizarre.  The other side had suspended the Constitution.  Torn it to shreds and wiped their mangy asses with it.  So you can fight and do what you need or you get ready to do this




[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: happyg on April 15, 2014, 09:02:51 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlMkEREIQAANIr5.jpg)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 09:25:50 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlMkEREIQAANIr5.jpg)

Jefferson is one of the guys who had a hand in drafting the Constitution.

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution of The United States.
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 15, 2014, 09:29:20 pm
Win at all costs.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 09:29:23 pm
Ya know, these Constitutional and legal arguments are truly flying near the bizarre.  The other side had suspended the Constitution.  Torn it to shreds and wiped their mangy asses with it.  So you can fight and do what you need or you get ready to do this

So, shouldn't the fight be about letting no one violate the Constitution instead of letting everyone violate it?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 09:36:37 pm
Win at all costs.

People want to make this into something that it isn't.

They want to turn this into a little guy versus an oppressive liberal government.

That's not what this is about.

This is an individual who will not recognize the validity of his State's Constitution, the Supremacy of the Federal Constitution, or the authority of the Courts.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 15, 2014, 09:48:07 pm
So, shouldn't the fight be about letting no one violate the Constitution instead of letting everyone violate it?

In a world of puppet shows and ice cream sundaes, yeah.  The Left has the destruction of the U.S. Constitution as their primary goal.  Part of that strategy has been to ignore and destroy at their will and wont. 
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 09:56:12 pm
In a world of puppet shows and ice cream sundaes, yeah.  The Left has the destruction of the U.S. Constitution as their primary goal.  Part of that strategy has been to ignore and destroy at their will and wont.

So how is the left destroying the Constitution in the Bundy case? 
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: sinkspur on April 15, 2014, 10:01:19 pm
Well, it appears the right has found its equivalent to MSNBC's Bridgegate and CNN's Malaysian airliner story.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 10:02:56 pm
Well, it appears the right has found its equivalent to MSNBC's Bridgegate and CNN's Malaysian airliner story.

Pithy.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 15, 2014, 10:07:09 pm
So how is the left destroying the Constitution in the Bundy case?

Not yet visible although Harry Reid isn't too far away.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Oceander on April 15, 2014, 11:10:48 pm
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which is an agency created by Congress, claimed that Bundy was “violating the law of the land.” Perhaps the agency has forgotten that the law of the land is the Constitution, and the only constitutional violation here is the very modern existence of the agency’s presence in Nevada. - See more at:

 http://www.thedailysheeple.com/who-actually-owns-americas-land-a-deeper-look-at-the-bundy-ranch-crisis_042014#sthash.C3ol9kLA.q5jaxp5b.dpuf


Please don't take offense because I'm not saying anything against you, but the author of that article is flat wrong. 

Article IV, section 3, cl. 2 of the Constitution provides:
Quote
The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

That provision establishes that the United States government as such can indeed own property, including territory, in its own right.  It also necessarily covers more ground than Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 17, which is the only clause the author refers to.  This has to be the case because otherwise Art. IV, sec. 3, cl. 2 would be meaningless because it wouldn't do anything that wasn't already done by Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 17.

I cannot think of anything that more flatly contradicts the author and falsifies his conclusion.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 11:40:56 pm
Not yet visible although Harry Reid isn't too far away.

It's not that it is "not yet visible", it is that in this case, there is no violation of the Constitution, only violation of Constitutional laws and Court mandates by Cliven Bundy.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: DCPatriot on April 15, 2014, 11:43:35 pm
Ya know, these Constitutional and legal arguments are truly flying near the bizarre.  The other side had suspended the Constitution.  Torn it to shreds and wiped their mangy asses with it.  So you can fight and do what you need or you get ready to do this

I've been thinking that too.....this Administration boasts that they will decide which laws to enforce and which ones they're not.

They are ignoring the most porous border in the South we've seen in a decade....to harass one remaining farmer.

Mark Levin was just discussing that the US government owns 25% of the United States land... Alaska and Hawaii excepted.  Why?

Furthermore, only between something like 4.6 to 6.5 percent of all land in the US is developed.

This administration is condemning many peoples' homes that happen to be surrounded by US parkland.  You think you're buying your paradise and instead, you lose it all.

Add in the fact that all new developments are preplanned and they crowd residences into small clusters.

This all smacks in the face of those of us born and raised on apple pie, baseball and Chevrolet.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 11:45:21 pm
This is so plainly in error I'm not even sure where to start.  I'm also pretty sure that there isn't any point to starting because no amount of reason or discussion seems to shake the belief that the federal government does not own that land and that Mr. Bundy can do as he pleases.

The only people disregarding the Constitution here are Mr. Bundy, his supporters and his enablers.  They are no better than Harry Reid and all the other Constitution-ignoring democrats/liberals.

I'll just pick one sentence:

Quote
The Founding Fathers never imagined the citizens of a state would be subject to such treatment at the hands of the federal government.

Three words:

The Whiskey Rebellion.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 11:49:21 pm
I've been thinking that too.....this Administration boasts that they will decide which laws to enforce and which ones they're not.

That was one of the lead comments on one of the FOX News shows earlier today, and FOX's comments were telling.

They pointed out that most law enforcement, from the street cop through to the President and AG, have wide discretionary powers as to which laws to enforce, and when, and which laws not to enforce but that citizens have no such discretionary ability, and that we're bound to obey all laws at all times.

Cliven Bundy lacks the right to decide which laws and whose mandates he will abide by.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 15, 2014, 11:57:26 pm
It seems that there is something those urging violence are missing:  if an armed rebellion against the United States is successful, the Constitution will be irretrievably destroyed.  The legitimacy of the rebels' cause requires that the Constitution be illegitimate, that is, broken.  Because if the Constitution still stands, then the rebels' cause is nothing more than lawless armed insurrection.  In other words, those of Mr. Bundy's supporters who are calling for armed insurrection are not upholding the Constitution, they are attempting to destroy it.  They ought at least to be honest about that.

Plus they'd have the extra added bonus of engaging in the Constitutional definition of treason.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 16, 2014, 12:04:02 am
Still, that discretion cannot be boundless and it cannot be exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner.  There must be some content to the president's duty to see that the laws are faithfully enforced.  The problems are finding the line between legitimate discretion and caprice, and what to do about an arbitrary, capricious executive.  In my view, the way to deal with such an executive is through the vote and through the courts.

Yet, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the people of Nevada will re-elect Harry Reid.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: truth_seeker on April 16, 2014, 12:19:12 am
Yet, I'm willing to bet dollars to donuts that the people of Nevada will re-elect Harry Reid.
Last time around Reid was polling well behind a generic GOP opponent, until they picked the Tea Party's Sharron Angle, to oppose him.

Maybe with a stronger candidate, he can be defeated.

Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Fishrrman on April 16, 2014, 12:27:56 am
Luis wrote above:
[[ We all need to abide by one Constitution and we all need to abide by the decisions of our Courts, because otherwise we will never have a sustainable Constitution... ]]

Judging from the behavior of the current administration over the last 5+ years, and the failure of Congress to oppose it, we don't seem to have "a sustainable Constitution" now.

Whatcha gonna do about it?

Luis also wrote in post #222:
[[ They want to turn this into a little guy versus an oppressive liberal government.
That's not what this is about. ]]

But, yes, it -is- what this is about.

Did you read my post #208 above?

I'll repeat it:
==============
The Feds & the BLM are out of control. They spent over $3 million to harass Bundy & go after $1 million in grazing fees they say he owes. Also- They cut his grazing allotment down to where they were only allowing him 250 cows on 260,000 acres!!! Do the math! That is over 1000 acres PER COW!! It is also not enough cows to run the ranch profitably. That kind of land/cow ratio is nuts!!!
==============
source:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3144592/posts?page=31#31

I cannot verify if the numbers above are correct. But if they are, the land use "agreement" that the BLM tried to foist upon Mr. Bundy was indeed lopsided and "oppressive".

Mr. Bundy's side claims that the BLM forced the other ranchers in the area out of business. Again, if the numbers above are to be believed, that's easy to understand.

Brings to mind the scene in "The Godfather" in which Micheal Corleone tells Kay about the time his father and Luca Brazi visited someone. In Michael's words, "Luca Brazi held a gun to his head and said either his signature or his brains would be on the contract."

1,000+ acres per cow?
Where's the gun?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: pjohns on April 16, 2014, 01:32:00 am
I'm not so sure centralization will be a consequence in this case.  It may be the perfect point for states to take some power back.  Who is better suited to react, respond and plan to conditions on the ground, a state agency or some agency suit in Washington?

This is a very good point, in my opinion. 
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: aligncare on April 16, 2014, 01:32:50 am
Last time around Reid was polling well behind a generic GOP opponent, until they picked the Tea Party's Sharron Angle, to oppose him.

Maybe with a stronger candidate, he can be defeated.

They say you can't replace something with nothing. In Reid's case you can - and still get a better senator out of it.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: aligncare on April 16, 2014, 01:55:23 am
I'm not so sure centralization will be a consequence in this case.  It may be the perfect point for states to take some power back.  Who is better suited to react, respond and plan to conditions on the ground, a state agency or some agency suit in Washington?
This is like stopping Common Core or closing national monuments during the sequester.  People want their local lives back.  If played wisely, it can be a boon.

Article 5 convention of the states is picking up steam with 29 states already passing Article V legislation.  So perhaps the states - which had conceived the federal apparatus - will play the hand the founders put in the Constitution for just such a case, to rein in an ever-growing, bureaucratic and authoritarian federal government.

We will struggle – but I am hopeful.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Oceander on April 16, 2014, 02:39:36 am
Article 5 convention of the states is picking up steam with 29 states already passing Article V legislation.  So perhaps the states - which had conceived the federal apparatus - will play the hand the founders put in the Constitution for just such a case, to rein in an ever-growing, bureaucratic and authoritarian federal government.

We will struggle – but I am hopeful.


does this legislation call for a convention limited to certain specified topics, or does it just call for a convention?  if it just calls for a convention without restrictions, then it's a recipe for pure disaster.  people think the democrats engage in electoral fraud just to win ordinary elections?  then think carefully about just how much fraud they'll commit in order to gain control of such a convention, to completely redraw the Constitution to their own liking.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: Luis Gonzalez on April 16, 2014, 03:32:43 am
"I abide by all of Nevada state laws. But I don’t recognize the United States government as even existing."" - Cliven Bundy, The  Show, 04/10/2014 (http://danaloeschradio.com/the-western-war-last-remaining-rancher-vs-the-federal-govt/)

Article 1, Section 2 of the Nevada Constitution:

Quote
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require it. But the Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States; and no power exists in the people of this or any other State of the Federal Union to dissolve their connection therewith or perform any act tending to impair, subvert, or resist the Supreme Authority of the government of the United States. The Constitution of the United States confers full power on the Federal Government to maintain and Perpetuate its existence, and whensoever any portion of the States, or people thereof attempt to secede from the Federal Union, or forcibly resist the Execution of its laws, the Federal Government may, by warrant of the Constitution, employ armed force in compelling obedience to its Authority.

In the show, Bundy argues that he's "paid for and inherited" the right to have his cattle grazing on public land.

The Nevada Constitution again:

Quote
That the people inhabiting said territory do agree and declare, that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposition of the United States; …..”

The Nevada Constitution pre-existed the arrival of the Bundy family to the State of Nevada by two decades.

Bundy claims that since his family was in Nevada prior to the creation of the BLM, he has"preeminent" rights to the use of the land.

The Taylor Gazing Act of 1934 states that:

Quote
So far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter, grazing privileges recognized and acknowledged shall be adequately safeguarded, but the creation of a grazing district or the issuance of a permit pursuant to the provisions of this subchapter shall not create any right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands.

He has no "right" to use the land.
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 16, 2014, 11:11:25 am
In word and in deed, the Executive branch has decided which laws they will enforce and which laws they will not.  Now, if that were a marriage, that would be cause for divorce.  If that were a business contract, that would make the contract null and void. 
This may be the worse but it is the last bit of puss that brings the pimple to a head.  You can decide if you will continue to be the aggrieved partner, the abused spouse or you can stand up for yourself and say "Not one more step!".
It's not a matter of being a "Keyboard Commando" or a hot-head.  It's standing up for what you will accept and what you will not.  The Constitution is a piece of vellum with words written upon it.  America however, is an idea, an ideal.  No man is above the law, not a rancher, not an AG, not a President.  If there were a press with teeth and not a giggle group of schoolgirl syncophants, this joker would have been long gone.
Let me give you a quick example about discretion.  I need a new fishing knife.  New Jersey, in all it's wisdom, has changed knife laws from blade length to "intent".  What did you intend to do with the knife?  That new knife would be kept in my tackle box.  Now it's a concealed weapon.  So, am I supposed to take a chance on Officer Friendly's mood on the "intent" of my knife?
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: aligncare on April 16, 2014, 11:46:46 am

does this legislation call for a convention limited to certain specified topics, or does it just call for a convention?  if it just calls for a convention without restrictions, then it's a recipe for pure disaster.  people think the democrats engage in electoral fraud just to win ordinary elections?  then think carefully about just how much fraud they'll commit in order to gain control of such a convention, to completely redraw the Constitution to their own liking.

Specific amendments directing federal government to operate within the Constitution. But, I'm not an expert on this subject. Check out Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin and google article V convention of states for more detailed analysis of how it would work.

On the surface this appears a good idea and may be our only avenue for peacefully and legally reining in fedgov abuses.

The Blaze - Growing chorus of state lawmakers ... (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/20/growing-chorus-of-state-lawmakers-call-for-constitutional-convention-to-force-fiscal-discipline-in-washington/)
Title: Re: BREAKING: Militia Arrives at Bundy Ranch
Post by: olde north church on April 16, 2014, 12:42:53 pm
As a matter of fact, to those without scales upon their eyes, this is just another step toward the Zimbabwe-zation of America.  Confiscation of land.  Militants at polls.  Transfer of wealth via health insurance policy payments.  Destruction of a nation by those unworthy to lead it.  Rhodesia on steroids.